Data analysis.

Introduction
The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.
Methods
This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2009 (n = 211) and 2012–2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.
Results
The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.
Conclusion
Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.

引言
2009年发布的PRISMA指南（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses）旨在解决系统综述与Meta分析（SRs/MAs）中关键方法学细节报告不充分的问题。本研究旨在评估PRISMA指南对牙科医学期刊全文报告质量的影响。

方法
本研究评估了2009版PRISMA指南对1993—2009年（n=211）及2012—2018年（n=618）发表于高影响力牙科医学期刊的SRs/MAs中13项方法学细节报告的影响。本研究进一步分析了PRISMA发布后纳入研究的摘要或全文中提及使用PRISMA的比例，以及提及使用PRISMA对报告质量的影响。此外，本研究还探讨了期刊《作者投稿须知》中纳入PRISMA指南的潜在效应，以及研究团队特征的相关作用。

结果
PRISMA指南发布后，SRs/MAs报告的条目数显著提升（PRISMA发布前：M=7.83，SD=3.267；PRISMA发布后：M=10.55，SD=1.4）。PRISMA发布后，作者极少在摘要中提及PRISMA（占比8.9%），但有59.87%的SRs/MAs在全文中描述了PRISMA的使用情况。从全文中对PRISMA使用的描述来看，学界对其核心宗旨（即报告规范指导）尚未形成充分认知：超过三分之一的SRs/MAs（35.6%）将PRISMA错误解读为用于指导综述实施的工具。不过，任何形式的PRISMA提及使用均与报告质量提升显著相关。在本研究考察的研究团队特征中，仅团队规模与报告质量提升呈正相关关系。

结论
2009年PRISMA指南发布后，发表于高影响力牙科医学期刊的SRs/MAs，其关键方法学细节的报告水平均有所提升。全文中提及PRISMA与报告质量之间的正向关联，进一步证实了PRISMA指南对提升牙科医学领域SRs/MAs报告透明度的积极作用。