Author Guidelines for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Journal of Iranian Dental Association (JIDA)

1. Scope and Relevance

The Journal of Iranian Dental Association (JIDA) welcomes systematic reviews and meta-analyses that address clinically significant questions in dentistry, oral health, and related biomedical sciences. Submissions must synthesize high-quality evidence and provide clear implications for clinical practice, education, or policy.

2. Reporting Standards

Authors are required to comply with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram must be submitted as supplementary files.

3. Manuscript Structure

Title Page

The title page of the manuscript should begin with a concise and informative title that clearly reflects the nature of the study, explicitly indicating whether it is a “Systematic Review” and/or “Meta-Analysis.” This ensures immediate recognition of the article type by readers and indexers. Following the title, authors must provide their full names, institutional affiliations, and ORCID iDs to facilitate accurate attribution and enhance scholarly transparency. Additionally, the contact information of the corresponding author—including a valid email address and institutional mailing address—must be clearly stated to enable effective communication regarding the manuscript during the review and publication process.

Abstract

The abstract should be presented in a structured format, clearly delineating the following components: Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. This format ensures clarity and facilitates rapid comprehension by readers and reviewers. If the systematic review or meta-analysis has been registered in a recognized database such as PROSPERO, the registration number must be included within the abstract to enhance transparency and reproducibility. Authors are advised to maintain a strict word limit of 250 words, ensuring that the abstract remains concise while effectively summarizing the key elements of the study

Keywords

Authors are required to provide between three to six keywords that accurately reflect the core themes and subject matter of the manuscript. These keywords should be selected from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) vocabulary to ensure consistency with international indexing standards and to enhance the discoverability of the article in scientific databases. The use of standardized MeSH terms facilitates accurate classification and retrieval of the publication by researchers and clinicians worldwide.

Introduction

Certainly! Here's a formal and elaborative paragraph version of that guidance:

The Introduction section should begin by clearly articulating the central research question that the systematic review or meta-analysis seeks to address. This question should be specific, focused, and framed within a relevant clinical or scientific context. Authors must then provide a compelling justification for conducting the review, highlighting gaps or inconsistencies in the existing literature and explaining how the current study contributes to advancing knowledge or practice in the field. Finally, the introduction should explicitly state the study’s objectives and, where applicable, its hypotheses, thereby establishing a clear foundation for the methodological approach and subsequent analysis.

Methods

The Methods section must be detailed and transparent, enabling reproducibility and critical appraisal. Authors should begin by clearly outlining the eligibility criteria for study inclusion, preferably using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) to structure the research question. A comprehensive search strategy must be described, including the names of databases searched (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), the time frame covered, and any language or publication restrictions applied. The study selection process should be explained step-by-step, ideally supported by a PRISMA flow diagram. Authors must also describe how data were extracted and managed, including the use of standardized forms or software. To assess the quality of included studies, appropriate risk of bias tools should be employed—such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials or ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. If a meta-analysis is conducted, the statistical methods used must be clearly explained, including models applied (e.g., fixed or random effects), measures of heterogeneity, and approaches to publication bias. Finally, authors should indicate whether the review protocol was registered in a recognized repository such as PROSPERO, and provide the registration number if available.

Results

The Results section should present a clear and comprehensive summary of the findings derived from the included studies. Authors must begin by providing a PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the study selection process, including the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and ultimately included. A detailed summary of the included studies should follow, preferably in tabular format, outlining key characteristics such as study design, sample size, interventions, and outcomes. The results of the risk of bias assessment should be reported transparently, using appropriate tools and visual aids where applicable. For manuscripts that include a meta-analysis, authors must present the statistical findings using forest plots, funnel plots, and relevant metrics such as effect sizes and confidence intervals. If subgroup analyses or sensitivity analyses were conducted, these should be described and interpreted clearly to support the robustness of the findings

Discussion

The Discussion section should provide a thoughtful interpretation of the results in the context of existing literature. Authors are expected to critically evaluate their findings, highlight consistencies or discrepancies with previous studies, and explore possible explanations for observed trends. The discussion should also address the strengths and limitations of the review, including methodological constraints, potential biases, and the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, authors should outline the implications for clinical practice, education, or policy, and suggest directions for future research that could build upon the current evidence base.

Conclusion

The Conclusion should offer a concise summary of the key findings and their relevance to the field of dentistry. Authors should avoid repeating detailed results and instead focus on the broader implications of the review. Clear recommendations for practitioners, educators, or researchers may be included, based on the strength of the evidence presented.

References

All references cited in the manuscript must be formatted according to the Vancouver style, which is the standard referencing format for biomedical and clinical journals. Authors are expected to ensure the accuracy and completeness of each citation, including correct author names, article titles, journal names, volume and issue numbers, page ranges, and publication years. References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text and listed accordingly at the end of the manuscript. Proper citation not only upholds academic integrity but also facilitates verification and further reading by reviewers and readers

4. Supplementary Materials

Authors are required to submit a set of supplementary materials that enhance the transparency and reproducibility of their systematic review or meta-analysis. These include a completed PRISMA checklist and an accompanying flow diagram, which together document the study selection process and adherence to reporting standards. A detailed search strategy must be provided for each database used, specifying the exact search terms, filters, and limits applied during the literature search. Where applicable, data extraction forms may be included to illustrate how information was systematically collected from the included studies. Additionally, authors should present risk of bias tables summarizing the quality assessment of each study, using appropriate tools and criteria. These supplementary files are essential for ensuring methodological rigor and facilitating peer review.

5. Statistical Requirements

In manuscripts that include a meta-analysis, authors must provide a clear and detailed description of the statistical models employed to synthesize data across studies. This includes specifying whether fixed-effect or random-effects models were used, along with a rationale for the chosen approach based on the nature and variability of the included studies. Measures of heterogeneity, such as I² and τ², should be reported to quantify the degree of inconsistency among study results and to guide interpretation of pooled estimates. Additionally, authors are expected to assess and address publication bias, using appropriate statistical tests such as Egger’s test or visual tools like funnel plots. These elements are essential for evaluating the reliability and generalizability of the meta-analytic findings.

6. Ethical Considerations

In general, systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not require ethical approval, as they involve the synthesis of previously published data rather than the collection of new information from human participants. However, if the review includes patient-level or unpublished individual data, authors must obtain appropriate ethical clearance and clearly state this within the manuscript. Regardless of ethical approval status, all authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial relationships, affiliations, or personal connections that could influence the interpretation of the findings. Additionally, authors must provide a transparent account of all funding sources that supported the work, specifying the role of the funders in the design, execution, or reporting of the study.

7. Submission Checklist

Authors must ensure that all required documents are included at the time of submission to facilitate a smooth review process. A cover letter should accompany the manuscript, briefly introducing the study, its significance, and confirming that it meets the journal’s scope and ethical standards. The main manuscript file must be submitted in Microsoft Word format, adhering to the journal’s formatting guidelines. A completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram must be provided as supplementary files to demonstrate compliance with systematic review reporting standards. All tables and figures should be submitted as separate, high-resolution files, clearly labeled and referenced within the manuscript. If applicable, additional supplementary materials—such as search strategies, data extraction forms, or risk of bias assessments—should also be included to support the transparency and reproducibility of the review.