Factors Associated With the Citation Impact of Evidence Synthesis Reviews in Endodontics: A Bibliometric Analysis

Systematic reviews are essential for evidence-based decision-making in endodontics, and their number has grown substantially in recent years. However, little is known about the publication patterns, methodological features and citation impact of these studies.

To perform a bibliometric analysis of evidence synthesis reviews (including systematic, scoping, bibliometric and umbrella reviews) in endodontics published between 2018 and 2023, and to evaluate the associations between citation impact and demographic, article-related, author-related and journal-related variables.

This bibliometric analysis was reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jf9et/). A comprehensive search was conducted in five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library). Inclusion criteria encompassed systematic, scoping, umbrella and bibliometric reviews in endodontics. Citation data were extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and negative binomial regression to assess associations with citation counts.

Of 9683 records identified, 511 endodontic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most were published in 2022-2023, predominantly by authors from Asia, Europe and the Americas. Brazil had the highest publication volume, while the USA led in citations. PRISMA adherence was high (90%), but funding and conflict of interest disclosures were infrequent. Citation impact was positively associated with earlier publication year, the last author's h-index, the number of included studies and journal CiteScore. Methodological factors such as protocol registration and article-related variables like open access were not significantly associated with citations after adjustment.

The citation impact of endodontic evidence synthesis reviews is primarily influenced by temporal factors, author academic standing and journal prestige rather than methodological rigour alone. These findings reveal a disconnect between indicators of research quality and citation performance and highlight the necessity of promoting transparency as a scientific value rather than as a surrogate for visibility.

This study was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/jf9et/).