Reporting of conflict of interest and sponsorship in dental journals

Faggion, Clóvis Mariano; Pandis, Nikolaos; Cardoso, Gabriela Cardoso de; Rodolfo, Bruna; Morel, Laura Lourenço; Moraes, Rafael R.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103452

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another review of RCT`s, showed that seven out of nine included studies were funded by industry directly involved in the product being tested; one study did not receive funding, and one reported unclear funding [ 80 ]. The prevalence of COI statements/sections seems to be more underreported (32.1%) in dental journals compared with other medical journals (13.6%) [ 81 ]. However, a systematic review that compared sponsored and non-sponsored RCT assessing different implant systems, found no significant difference in marginal bone loss related to sponsorship status [ 82 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of systemic antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language. Results The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed. Conclusion The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors’ declaration on conflict of interest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of systemic antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An author's negligence, forgetfulness or ignorance is not acceptable defence for failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest can arise when authors, sponsors or funders accrue potential personal or financial benefits from a peer‐reviewed publication (Faggion et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reporting of author–industry financial ties in clinical trials published in high‐impact peer‐reviewed medical journals has increased from 7% in 2010 to 44% in 2016–2018 (Benea et al, 2020). On the other hand, Faggion et al (2020) reported that potential conflicts of interest are under‐reported in dental journals. This is because the 26% of clinical studies, 26% of laboratory studies and 44% of case reports or case series published in high‐ranked dental journals did not report any information about potential conflicts of interest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; http://www.icmje.org) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publi catio nethi cs.org) have created a policy to ensure that conflicts of interest are declared and interpreted (Zhu & Sun, 2019). The disclosure of detailed information about the conflicts of interest and funding in manuscripts helps editors, peer reviewers and readers to develop a better understanding of the results and conclusions of reports and their interpretation; they also increase transparency and the ability of journals to disseminate trustworthy research (Faggion et al, 2020;Zhu & Sun, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Promoting integrity in scholarly research and its publication: International Endodontic Journal policy on reporting conflicts of interest, funding and acknowledgements within manuscripts submitted for publication

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other more general aspects also threaten studies' validity, such as conflicts of interest. Even financial conflicts of interest, which are the easiest to identify, have been poorly reported in dentistry 19 . Publication bias may generate a distorted view of measures of effect, and until researchers and editors fully realise that negative and positive findings are equally important, we will have to make healthcare decisions based on biased effect estimates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%