Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for s checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for s checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for s checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for s checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for s checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology.