Critical Analysis of Reporting Quality of Network Meta-Analyses in Periodontology and Implantology

The increasing recognition of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in dentistry, particularly in periodontology and implantology, lacks assessed reporting quality. To address this, our study will undertake a systematic review of previously reported NMAs. Researchers conducted an electronic search in Web of Science and Scopus to identify NMAs across all dentistry journals. Two independent investigators selected studies, extracted data, and assessed reporting quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for NMA (PRISMA-NMA) checklist with 32 items. Each "yes" response earned 1 point, and "no" responses received 0 points, yielding an overall reporting quality score. In total, 39 NMAs were included in this study. The NMAs were published between 2010 and October 2024, with most of them published in 2022 (25%). Most of the NMAs employed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines (47%) and have been published in the <i>Journal of Clinical Periodontology</i> (53%). The overall reporting quality of the included NMAs ranged between 87.5 and 100% (i.e., high quality of reporting [≥ 75th %]), with 5 NMAs reporting all 27 items of the PRISMA-NMA statement. The limitations, presentation of network structure (<i>results</i>), funding, and objectives (<i>methods</i>) were reported in 97, 94, 81, and 78% of the NMAs, respectively. The least reported items were the protocol registration and the summary of network geometry, which were reported in 53% of the NMAs. All the remaining items were reported in all 39 NMAs. The reporting quality of the NMAs published related to periodontology and implantology was high. However, some deficiencies were revealed associated with the reporting quality of the PRISMA-NMA items, including protocol registration, formulation of the research question based on the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format, and summarization of the network geometry.