Subject(s)
Editorial Policies , Prosthodontics , Forecasting , Humans , Journalism, Dental/standards , Professional RoleABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the expert panel methodology applied in orthodontics and its reporting quality. Additionally, the relationship between the reporting quality and a range of variables was explored. METHODS: PubMed was searched for orthodontic studies in which the final diagnosis or assessment was made by 2 or more experts published up to March 16, 2015. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using an established modified checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the total score was assessed using univariable linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 237 studies with a mean score of 9.97 (SD, 1.12) out of a maximum of 15. Critical information about panel methodology was missing in all studies. The panel composition differed substantially across studies, ranging from 2 to 646 panel members, with large variations in the expertise represented. Only 17 studies (7.2%) reported sample size calculations to justify the panel size. Panel members were partly blinded in 65 (27.4%) studies. Most studies failed to report which statistic was used to compute intrarater (65.8%) and interrater (66.2%) agreements. Journal type (nonorthodontic: ß, 0.23; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.54 compared with orthodontic), publication year (ß, 0; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02 for each additional year), number of authors (1-3: ß, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.74 compared with at least 6; 4-5: ß, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.33 compared with at least 6), and number of centers involved (single: ß, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.54 compared with multicenter) were not significant predictors of improved reporting. Studies published in Asia and Australia had significantly lower scores compared with those published in Europe (ß, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Formal guidelines on methodology and reporting of studies involving expert panels are required.
Subject(s)
Dental Research/standards , Journalism, Dental/standards , Orthodontics/standards , Dental Research/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Orthodontics/statistics & numerical data , Reference StandardsABSTRACT
En los artículos anteriores de esta serie se ha proporcionado información sobre la revista científica, el artículo científico original y el artículo científico de revisión. El propósito de esta cuarta entrega de educación continua es brindar los conocimientos básicos necesarios para entender los ensayos clínicos y los ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorios (ECAs). Un ECA es un experimento científico prospectivo que involucra sujetos humanos en los que se inicia un tratamiento o intervención para su evaluación. En el ECA los sujetos son asignados al azar a uno de dos grupos: el grupo experimental y el grupo de comparación o control...
Subject(s)
Humans , Clinical Trials as Topic , Education, Dental, Continuing/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Databases, Bibliographic , Journalism, Dental/standards , PubMed/standards , BiasABSTRACT
El artículo científico original proporciona un método para que los científicos puedan comunicarse con otros científicos sobre los resultados de sus investigaciones. El propósito de esta segunda parte de educación continua es dar una breve guía con consejos para ayudar al proceso de una mejor redacción científica y delinear los principios de la escritura y la edición. Escribir un artículo científico en una revista revisada por pares es un proceso exigente que requiere tiempo y habilidad. El artículo científico que informa sobre una investigación original incluye tres partes importantes: preliminares, cuerpo principal y parte final. El cuerpo principal debe seguir una estructura estándar resumido por el acrónimo IMRAD: introducción, métodos, resultados y discusión/conclusión. Cada sección tiene su propio estilo de la estructura y lenguaje de presentación. Se explica la importancia del empleo de tables y figuras y se analizan otras secciones relevantes como la autoría, afiliación, conflicto de intereses y referencias...
Subject(s)
Humans , Editorial Policies , Periodical , Journalism, Dental/standards , Authorship in Scientific Publications , Publishing/standards , Writing/standardsABSTRACT
A fin de mejorar su calidad informativa, la Revista de la Asociación Odontológica Argentina se ajusta a la normativa internacional para la presentación de publicaciones periódicas
Subject(s)
Animals , Dental Research/standards , Periodical , Journalism, Dental/standards , Argentina , Reference Standards , Societies, DentalABSTRACT
A fin de mejorar su calidad informativa, la Revista de la Asociación Odontológica Argentina se ajusta a la normativa internacional para la presentación de publicaciones periódicas(AU)
Subject(s)
Animals , Journalism, Dental/standards , Periodical , Dental Research/standards , Argentina , Societies, Dental , Reference StandardsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS: Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. CONCLUSION: Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously.
Subject(s)
Journalism, Dental/standards , Orthodontics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , HumansABSTRACT
La Revista de la Sociedad Odontológica de La Plata es una publicación periódica científica que pone a disposición de sus lectores artículos científicos e información de actualidad sobre investigaciones y desarrollo acerca del área de la odontología. Como tal, debe cumplir requisitos establecidos y contener distintos tipos de artículos científicos. En esta serie de artículos, denominados Educación continua, se tratará de exponer los lineamientos principales para la creación, redacción y elaboración de manuscritos que permitan lograr el desarrollo de habilidades para tal fin, entre los profesionales odontólogos, hecho que influirá en la calidad y nivel científico-técnico de sus publicaciones...
Subject(s)
Education, Dental, Continuing , Periodical , Journalism, Dental/standards , Authorship in Scientific Publications , Peer Review , Serial Publications/standards , Societies, DentalABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: Dental professionals are constantly exposed to advertisements in the dental literature. These promote products, either for use in the operatory or to recommend to patients. In an era of evidence-based practice, what references are provided to support claims made by the advertisers? OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if advertisements in four major dental journals, whose target audience is general dental practitioners, were supported by an appropriate evidence-base, readily accessible to readers. METHODS: The 2010 printed volumes of the Australian Dental Journal, British Dental Journal, Dental Update and the Journal of the American Dental Association were hand searched to identify advertisements which made a claim of clinical benefit or superiority to competing products. Advertisements were categorized according to type of product being promoted and the availability, nature and number of any supporting references was recorded. Repeated advertisements were analyzed only once. RESULTS: A total of 390 advertisements were identified and 369 made a claim of benefit or superiority. When the 222 duplicates of the same advertisement were removed, 147 unique advertisements remained. Of these: 54 (37%) were advertisements related to dental devices for in-surgery use; 44 (30%) for dental materials, and 27 (18%) for dentifrices/medicaments. 113 (76.9%) advertisements offered no evidential support for claims made. Of the 34 advertisements that provided evidential support, only 20 provided a complete reference that could readily be sourced by an interested reader: 15 articles in refereed journals; 5 data on file; 3 in-house studies and combinations thereof. Four references were not accessible due to incomplete referencing. Two advertisements provided evidence that was not relevant to the product being advertised. CONCLUSION: The majority of advertisements in the dental literature do not provide an adequate evidence-base, readily available to readers, to support the claims being made. If evidence-based practice is to be encouraged, greater emphasis on scientific referencing in advertisements is required.
Subject(s)
Advertising/standards , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Evidence-Based Dentistry , Journalism, Dental/standardsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether studies published in orthodontic journals and titled as randomized clinical trials are truly randomized clinical trials. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification. METHODS: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Angle Orthodontist, Journal of Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, World Journal of Orthodontics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were hand searched for clinical trials labeled in the title as randomized from 1979 to July 2011. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, and univariable and multivariable examinations of statistical associations via ordinal logistic regression modeling (proportional odds model). RESULTS: One hundred twelve trials were identified. Of the included trials, 33 (29.5%) were randomized clinical trials, 52 (46.4%) had an unclear status, and 27 (24.1%) were not randomized clinical trials. In the multivariable analysis among the included journal types, year of publication, number of authors, multicenter trial, and involvement of statistician were significant predictors of correctly classifying a study as a randomized clinical trial vs unclear and not a randomized clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: From 112 clinical trials in the orthodontic literature labeled as randomized clinical trials, only 29.5% were identified as randomized clinical trials based on clear descriptions of appropriate random number generation and allocation concealment. The type of journal, involvement of a statistician, multicenter trials, greater numbers of authors, and publication year were associated with correct clinical trial classification. This study indicates the need of clear and accurate reporting of clinical trials and the need for educating investigators on randomized clinical trial methodology.
