Systematic Reviews
We welcome submissions of Systematic Reviews in the field of dentistry and oral health. Please note that EBD does not accept narrative reviews.
We mandate for authors to follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. A completed PRISMA 2020 checklist should be provided as Supplementary Information and a completed PRISMA 2020 flow diagram should accompany the main text as a Figure. A blank template of the checklist and flow diagram can be downloaded from the PRISMA website. We also strongly encourage authors to prospectively register their study protocol in a suitable registry, such as PROSPERO; in such cases, the registration number should be included as the last line of the abstract of the manuscript.
For Systematic Reviews of observational studies, please include a completed Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist instead.
Specifications
- Structured abstract max. 300 words
- Main body of text (excluding abstract, tables/figures, and references) not to exceed 6,000 words
- Max. 8 tables or figures
- Max. 100 references
- Include 3 key points highlighting the main findings of the review and how/if they affect or translate into practice
Structure
Systematic Reviews should be submitted with an abstract up to 300 words in length, and the body of the paper should be structured as per the PRISMA checklist:
- Title
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Author contributions
- Ethics declarations
- Funding information
- Acknowledgements
Where possible, we advise that you try and use the same headings used in the abstract in the main body of text. Additional headings can of course be added.
Title Page
The title page should contain:
- Title of the paper – titles should be informative, 150 characters or less and should not make a statement or conclusion.
- Full names of all the authors and their affiliations, together with e-mail address of the corresponding author.
- If authors regard it as essential to indicate that two or more co-authors are equal in status, this may be indicated within the ‘Acknowledgements’ section at the end of the paper (see below).
Abstract
Systematic Reviews must be prepared with a structured abstract designed to summarise the essential features of the paper in a logical and concise sequence under the following mandatory headings: Aims/Objectives, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions.
Aims/objectives
This section should provide a brief introduction to the subject being investigated including the context and purpose of the review.
Methods
This section should contain details of search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and all methodology related to data collection, analysis and synthesis. It should also include a statement that the study protocol was registered with an online registry (e.g. PROSPERO) if applicable.
Results
This section should present the findings of the systematic review in text as well as figures and/or tables. Tables and figures should not be described extensively in the text.
Discussion
This section should focus on the interpretationand the significance of the findings with concise objective comments that describe their relation to other work in the area. It should not repeat information in the results. It can include limitations of the Systematic Review if applicable.
Conclusion
This section should highlight the main conclusion(s) and should provide some indication of the direction future research should take.
Mandatory Statements
All Systematic Reviews should contain the following sections, listed after the Conclusion before the References list. All sections are mandatory except for ‘Acknowledgements’ which only needs to be included if applicable.
Author contributions: The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section (for example, ‘JS collected data and helped write the manuscript’). Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in the Editorial Policies page.
Ethics declarations: Authors must declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work described. This information must be included at the submission stage and will be published as part of the paper. If the authors do not have any conflict of interest, then please write “The authors declare no conflict of interest.” See our Editorial policies for more information.
Data availability: Authors must include a data availability statement in their manuscript. This should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. If the data is not publicly available, it is sufficient to state: "The data supporting this article can be made available by the corresponding author upon request."
Funding information: Authors must declare sources of study funding including sponsorship (e.g. university, charity, commercial organisation). If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”
Acknowledgements: These should be brief, and should include sources of material not available commercially. Preprints on recognised servers should also be included here (unless cited within the main text of your manuscript).
References
References should follow the Vancouver format and should be numbered sequentially throughout the text. All authors should be listed for papers with up to six authors; for papers with more than six authors, the first six only should be listed, followed by et al. (see examples below).
References that appear only in tables, figure legends or boxes should be included at the end of the reference list. When cited in the text, reference numbers should be superscript, not in brackets.
Only articles that have been published, or accepted by a named publication, should be in the reference list; papers in preparation and personal communications should be mentioned in the text with a list of authors as unpublished work (or initials if any of the authors are co-authors of the present contribution).
Preprints uploaded to recognised servers (for example, medRxiv, bioRxiv etc), published conference abstracts and research datasets that have been assigned a digital object identifier should be included in reference lists.
Abbreviations for titles of medical periodicals should conform to those used in the latest edition of Index Medicus. The first and last page numbers for each reference should be provided. Abstracts and letters must be identified as such. Papers in press may be included in the list of references.
Examples:
- Journal article: Field JV, Balfour-Paul A, Wright DW. Perimandibular space infections. Br Dent J 1981;150:255–258.
- Journal article (online only/ahead of print): van der Weijden FN, Hazenberg CJM, Jonkman REG, van Teeseling SRA, Ho J-PTF, Kuitert RB. Is orthognathic surgery indicated for wind instrument players? A multiple case study. Br Dent J 2022; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4292-9.
- Book: Hargreaves IA, Craig JW. The management of traumatised anterior teeth of children. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1981.
- Book chapter: Harding SR, Fryer JI. Recurrent oral ulceration in Greenland natives. In Casselli G (ed) Coeliac diseases. 3rd ed. pp 307–324. London: Stoma Press, 1982.
- Report: Committee on Mercury Hazards in Dentistry. Code of practice for dental mercury hygiene. London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1979. [Publication no. if applicable.]
- Webpage: General Dental Council. Scope of practice. 2009. Available at www.gdc-uk.org/Newsandpublications/Publications/Publications/ScopeofpracticeApril2009[1].pdf (accessed April 2022).
Figures and Tables
All figure and table legends should be brief, specific and appear on a separate manuscript page after the ‘References’ list. Where possible, large figures and tables should be included as Supplementary Information.
Figures: Figures and images should be labelled sequentially and cited in the text at least once and in the correct order (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 2 etc). Figures should not be embedded within the text but rather uploaded as separate files in TIFF, JPG or EPS formats, in either greyscale or colour. Colour figures are published free of charge. Figures should be a minimum of 6cm in width and set at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch (300 dpi). Please submit production-quality artwork with your initial online submission. If you have followed the guidelines, we will not require the artwork to be resubmitted following the peer review process/if your paper is accepted for publication (if applicable).
Tables: Tables should only be used to present essential data; they should not duplicate what is written in the text. It is imperative that any tables used are editable. Each table must be uploaded separately with a title or caption. Please make sure each table is cited within the text at least once and in the correct order (e.g. Table 1, Table 2 etc).
Any figures or tables taken from someone else's work requires permission to be obtained. Should you have any queries regarding permissions, you can contact the editorial office and we will help as much as possible. Obtaining permission also applies to quotes, adapted material and any other content taken from previously published works or unpublished but owned by a third party. The original source should be cited in the figure or table caption.
When photos of patients are used in which the patient is recognisable, written consent of the patient for publication should be obtained by the author.
Statistical guidelines
Our sister journal, the British Dental Journal, has put together some guidelines on the use of statistics in your manuscript, which also apply to Systematic Reviews submitted to EBD. We strongly recommend reviewing these guidelines before submission.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information is material directly relevant to the conclusion of an article that cannot be included in the Systematic Review itself owing to space or format constraints. The article must be complete and self-explanatory without the Supplementary Information, which is posted on the journal's website and linked to within the article.
Authors should submit Supplementary Information files in the final format as they are not edited, typeset or changed, and will appear online exactly as submitted. When submitting Supplementary Information, authors are required to:
- Include a text summary (no more than 50 words) to describe the contents of each file.
- Identify the types of files (file formats) submitted (e.g. PDF, Excel).
Where possible, all of the supplementary files should be combined into one file.
Please note: We do not allow the resupplying of Supplementary Information files for style reasons after a paper has been exported to production, unless there is a serious error that affects the science and, if by not replacing, it would lead to a formal correction once the paper has been published. In these cases, we would make an exception and replace the file; however, there are very few instances where a Supplementary Information file would be corrected post-publication.
Language editing
As an international journal, we receive submissions from all over the world. Papers can be rejected based on the quality of the written English; therefore, if you aren't a native English speaker, we strongly encourage you to take up some of the following options:
- Ask a colleague who is a native English speaker to review your manuscript for clarity.
- Use an English language editing service to help ensure your meaning is clear, such as the Springer Nature English Language Editing service. The use of a language editing service, including the Springer Nature English Language Editing service, is at the author's own expense and in no way implies that the article will be selected for peer review or accepted by EBD.
When you've prepared your manuscript and are happy with it, make sure you check over our ‘Ethics and policies’ page before checking out the submission section for further information on how to submit.