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

Abstract

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.

Association between industry support and the reporting of study outcomes in randomized clinical trials of dental implant research from the past 20 years

“…This result corroborates oral implant dentistry literature coverage that has seen a greater focus on prosthodontics issues, bone augmentation, and materials. 9,11,17,24 It is important to highlight that the industry's focus on specific research topics may be a source of bias due to selective research development that favors only market interests and not the clinical needs of patients.…”

The reporting and methodological quality of split‐mouth trials in oral implantology: A methodological study

“…Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. General characteristics: Journal information: journal title, journal type (oral implantology, other dental or non‐dental journals), journal impact factor (extracted from Journal Citation Reports 2020). Study information: publication year; number of authors, continent of first author, setting (university, healthcare service, or private practice), number of trial centres (single or multi‐centre), funding sources (funded by industry, funded by other sources, or unfunded/unreported). Study methodology: Research topic: dental implant surgeries, prosthetic reconstruction of dental implants, bone augmentation, materials, or others (Wu, Hu, et al, 2020). Length of follow‐up: before implant placement, before prosthetic treatment, or after loading. Number of intervention groups. Sample size (the total number of participants rather than teeth or sites). Reported use of reporting guidelines: CONSORT for parallel RCT, CONSORT for WPT, or none. Involvement of statistician (according to author's affiliation, full text, and acknowledgments), and Split‐mouth design. …”

“…Study methodology: Research topic: dental implant surgeries, prosthetic reconstruction of dental implants, bone augmentation, materials, or others (Wu, Hu, et al, 2020). Length of follow‐up: before implant placement, before prosthetic treatment, or after loading. Number of intervention groups. Sample size (the total number of participants rather than teeth or sites). Reported use of reporting guidelines: CONSORT for parallel RCT, CONSORT for WPT, or none. Involvement of statistician (according to author's affiliation, full text, and acknowledgments), and Split‐mouth design. …”

“…Research topic: dental implant surgeries, prosthetic reconstruction of dental implants, bone augmentation, materials, or others (Wu, Hu, et al, 2020).…”

Surgical interventions for implant placement in the anterior maxilla: A systematic scoping review with evidence mapping

“…High fragmentation of the body of evidence and its sheer size prevents conventional data synthesis methods. A substantial number of studies have been published during the past years, especially regarding different surgical techniques and tissue augmentation procedures (Wu et al, 2020). Systematic scoping and evidence mapping reviews may help appreciate the field's evolution, evidence distribution, types and gaps.…”