Reporting and handling of incomplete outcome data in implant dentistry: A survey of randomized clinical trials

Lieber, Ricarda; Pandis, Nikolaos; Faggion, Clóvis Mariano

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13222

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Description of missing data was not consistent across studies (Dumbrigue et al 2006), and confusion is evident in the terminology among complete case (Lieber et al 2020), per-protocol (PP), or intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Missing data were accounted for in 17% to 98% of dental studies (Table 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research waste is highly prevalent across biomedical investigations. We aimed to assess the evidence on the extent of research waste in dental research. We performed a scoping review of empirical evaluations of dental studies assessing the prevalence and impact of limitations in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research. PubMed was searched using specific terms to retrieve studies dealing with design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies in dentistry, with no year or language restrictions. Of the 1,807 publications identified from the search and from manual searches, 71 were included in this review. The topic and article selection was based on the expert opinion of the authors. The existing evidence suggests that, although there are improvements over time, substantial deficiencies in all areas (design, conduct, analysis, reporting) were prevalent in dental research publications. Waste in research is a multifaceted problem without a simple solution. However, an appreciation of optimal research design and execution is a prerequisite and should be underpinned by policies that include appropriate training in research methods and properly aligned incentives.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strengths of this study include the following: (a) LOE of studies was quantified by a modified tool; (b) AAS was used to reflect social impact; and (c) GEE analyses were performed to adjust potential impact of publication time on citation counts or AAS. A limitation of this study was that LOE/pyramid of evidence is a relatively simple tool, which does not take into account more specific aspects such as methodological quality (Dumbrigue, Al‐Bayat, Ng, & Wakefield, 2006; Howe, 2017), reporting quality (Kloukos, Papageorgiou, Doulis, Petridis, & Pandis, 2015; Lieber, Pandis, & Faggion, 2020), as well as the clinical significance of clinical research (Yaffe, Montgomery, Hopewell, & Shepard, 2012). However, it is an essential and practical tool for initial critical appraisal, helping clinicians to identify quickly those articles that may contain the best available evidence (Chen et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

Yan

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. Materials and methods: Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. Results: A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. Conclusions: During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

show abstract

“…The LOE is a simple tool for clinicians to pre‐screen clinical evidence on a certain topic, rather than a definitive judgement about the importance or quality of evidence (Howick et al, 2011b). The validity of RCT evidence is compromised when the methodology used is problematic and relevant biases exist (Faggion, Monje, & Wasiak, 2018; Lieber, Pandis, & Faggion, 2020; Sendyk, Rovai, Souza, Deboni, & Pannuti, 2019). In addition, the importance of clinician's expertise and judgement, as well as patient's values and characteristics, should not be forgotten (Sackett et al., 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Meng

Xiang

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact. Materials and Methods: Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS. Results: Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001). Conclusion: The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

show abstract

Reporting and handling of incomplete outcome data in implant dentistry: A survey of randomized clinical trials

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008–2018

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About