Research Questions: **Does having a librarian involved in the systematic review improve the quality of the review?** (Schellinger) Does having a librarian involved improve reproducibility of the search strategy? When a librarian is involved, does having a librarian as a coauthor improve the reproducibility of the search more than just having the librarian acknowledged? Does librarian involvement in the review improve reporting quality? Reporting quality defined using PRISMA standards—requiring reporting of 27 different items: we only tested for a select number of these Does having a librarian involved lead to the use of a greater number of databases to conduct the search? Does the involvement of a librarian make it more likely that grey literature is searched? **Have there been improvements in the quality of dental medicine systematic reviews since the PRISMA guidelines were published (published in 2009)?** (Sewell) Has the inclusion of the search strategy increased? Have the authors reported the databases searched? Have the searches been more reproducible since then? Have authors more frequently engaged in quality assessment/risk of bias assessment? Are authors more likely to report the following items: Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Number of authors involved in screening Number of authors involved in full-text review Number of articles in each stage of the review Searches Deduplication Title/abstract screening Full text review Databases searched Risk of bias/quality assessment How many reviews have reported all of the above? What is the average number of items reported from the above? Descriptive questions: Databases: What is the average number of databases used to conduct systematic reviews within dental medicine? 3.75 What is the mode for the number of databases used? 3 databases What are the most frequently used databases? Reviewers What is the average number of reviewers involved in the: title/abstract and 2.04 is the mean full-text review processes? 2.08 is the mean What is the mode for the number of reviewers involved in the title/abstract 2 full-text review processes? 2 Blinding: How frequently do authors report that screening decisions were made independently? Yes to blinding: 72.6% No to blinding: 27.4% Number of systematic reviews published: How many systematic reviews have been published per year in dental medicine journals included in the search?