Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) in Orthodontics have increased substantially, but whether this is commensurate with the evidence generated is questionable. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence outcome from SRMAs, the quality of included primary studies, and the proportion of SRMAs to original research in five orthodontic journals from 2015 to 2024. METHODS: SRMAs in Progress in Orthodontics (PO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), and Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists (JWFO) published during this period were evaluated for the evidence outcome and Risk of Bias (RoB) of included studies. The proportion of SRMAs to original research was also calculated, and trends were compared across two five-year periods (2015-2019 and 2020-2024). RESULTS: During this period, 292 SRMAs evaluating 4511 studies for 707 outcomes were published. Of the evaluated outcomes, 16.7 % were fully conclusive, 69.2 % partially conclusive, and 14.1 % inconclusive. Most included studies (n = 3149) showed moderate (37.4 %) or high (32.3 %) RoB. Of all evaluated publications (n = 3904), 7.5 % were SRMAs. Some journals showed an increase in partially conclusive outcomes (AO, JWFO), the proportion of SRMA (EJO), and studies with high RoB, as well as a drop in fully conclusive outcomes (AO, AJODO, PO) in the latter half. However, overall differences remained statistically nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Though maintaining the proportion of SRMA to primary research by most journals is comforting, the SRMAs staying less productive in evidence, and primary research with high RoB are a matter of concern.