Reporting of Research Quality Characteristics of Studies Published in 6 Major Clinical Dental Specialty Journals

Pandis, Nikolaos; Polychronopoulou, Argy; Madianos, Phoebus; Makou, Margarita; Eliades, Theodore

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.11.026

Cited by 32 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might indicated the relative ease of performing simpler study designs in orthodontics. A 2011 study by Pandis et al 29 on articles published in six major clinical dental specialized journals indicated that the dominant design was cross-sectional study. It is recognized that different study design could correspond to different levels of evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011

Hui

Han

Geng

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals and to analyze their characteristics to investigate the achievement and development of orthodontics research in past decades. Methods and Materials: The Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge Database and the 2011 Journal Citation Report Science Editions were used to retrieve the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals since 1975. Some basic information was collected by the Analyze Tool on the Web of Science, including citation time, publication title, journal name, publication year, and country and institution of origin. A further study was then performed to determine authorship, article type, field of study, study design, and level of evidence. Results: The 100 target articles were retrieved from three journals: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n = 74), The Angle Orthodontist (n = 15), and European Journal of Orthodontics (n = 11). Since 1975, the articles cited 89 to 545 times mainly originated from the United States, and the overwhelming majority of articles were clinical. The most common study design was case series; 40 articles were classified as level IV and 12 as level V evidence. Conclusions: The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics are generally old articles, rarely possessing high-level evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011

Hui

Han

Geng

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No evidence of association between reporting bias in the dental literature and journal impact factor has been identified, 10,11 whereas conflicting evidence exists between industry sponsorship and significant findings. 12,13 Less than half of the abstracts presented at leading dental conferences proceeded to full publication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

Papageorgiou

Kloukos

Petridis

et al. 2015

Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In six major clinical specialty dental journals, reporting of research quality characteristics was unsatisfactory with several statistical issues, such as random allocation, sample size calculation, confounding effect measurements, and multivariate analysis (4). Moreover, for studies with clustering effects arising either due to aggregates of individuals or repeated measurements of the same subject, adjustment for clustering effects during statistical analysis was made in <40% of the studies (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the statistical methodology of randomized trials on dentin hypersensitivity management

Matranga¹,

Matera

Pizzo

2017

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and quality of statistical methodology used in clinical studies on dentin hypersensitivity management. An electronic search was performed for data published from 2009 to 2014 by using PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary search terms were used in combination. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of desensitizing agents in terms of reducing dentin hypersensitivity. A total of 40 studies were considered eligible for assessment of quality statistical methodology. The four main concerns identified were i) use of nonparametric tests in the presence of large samples, coupled with lack of information about normality and equality of variances of the response; ii) lack of P-value adjustment for multiple comparisons; iii) failure to account for interactions between treatment and follow-up time; and iv) no information about the number of teeth examined per patient and the consequent lack of cluster-specific approach in data analysis. Owing to these concerns, statistical methodology was judged as inappropriate in 77.1% of the 35 studies that used parametric methods. Additional studies with appropriate statistical analysis are required to obtain appropriate assessment of the efficacy of desensitizing agents.

show abstract

Reporting of Research Quality Characteristics of Studies Published in 6 Major Clinical Dental Specialty Journals

Cited by 32 publications

References 42 publications

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011

Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

Evaluating the statistical methodology of randomized trials on dentin hypersensitivity management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About