Economic evaluation of fluoride varnish application in preschoolers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Fluoride varnish (FV) is a convenient way of professionally applying fluoride in preschoolers. However, its modest anticaries effect highlights the need for economic evaluations. AIM: To assess economic evaluations reporting applications of FV to reduce caries incidence in preschoolers. DESIGN: We included full economic evaluations with preschool participants, in which the intervention was FV and the outcome was related to dentin caries. We searched in CENTRAL; MEDLINE via PubMed; WEB OF SCIENCE; EMBASE; SCOPUS; LILACS; BBO; and BVS Economia em saúde, OpenGrey, and EconoLit. Clinical trial registers, thesis and dissertations, and meeting abstracts were hand searched, as well as 11 dental journals. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Philips' and Drummond's (full and simplified) tools. RESULTS: Titles and abstracts of 2871 articles were evaluated, and 200 were read in full. Eight cost-effectiveness studies were included: five modeling and three within-trial evaluations. None of the studies gave sufficient information to allow a thorough assessment using the bias tools. We did not combine the results of the studies due to the great heterogeneity among them. Four studies reported that FV in preschool children was a cost-effective measure, but in one of these studies, sealants and fluoride toothpaste were more cost-effective measures than the varnish, and three studies used limited data that compromised the generalizability of their results. The other four studies showed a large increase in costs due to the application of varnish and/or low cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: We did not find convincing overall evidence that applying FV in preschoolers is an anticaries cost-effective measure. The protocol of this systematic review is available at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/xw5va/).

Comment on Zhong et al. Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1336.

In February 2020, the paper "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax" was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [...].

Um ano de e-mails não solicitados: o modus operandi de revistas e editoras predatórias / One year of unsolicited e-mails: the modus operandiof predatory journals and publishers

Objetivo: Quantificar, caracterizar e analisar e-mails de revistas predatórias (RP) recebidos por uma pesquisadora da área de odontologia. Materiais e métodos: E-mails recebidos em 2019 e suspeitos de serem potencialmente predatórios foram pré-selecionados. O checklist do Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) para identificar RP biomédicas suspeitas foi aplicado, incluindo os seguintes critérios: taxa/preço de publicação (TP), fator de impacto falso, a revista estar listada no Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) e no Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Também foram extraídas informações sobre a falta de um fator de impacto no Journal Citations Reports, endereço de contato de e-mail não afiliado à revista, linguajar lisonjeiro, citação pessoal e/ou de um artigo, link de cancelamento de inscrição do tipo unsubscribe, estar listado no catálogo atual da National Library of Medicine (NLM) e estar indexado no Medline. Resultados: Um total de 2.812 e-mails suspeitos não solicitados foram recebidos e 1.837 requisitaram algum tipo de manuscrito; entre eles, 1.751 preencheram algum critério do OHRI. Menos da metade (780/1.837, 42%) referiu-se a alguma área da odontologia. A TP mediana foi de US$ 399. Um falso fator de impacto foi mencionado em 11% (201/1.837) dos e-mails e 27% (504/1.837) correspondiam a periódicos atualmente listados no catálogo da NLM. Os periódicos listados no DOAJ e COPE enviaram 89 e-mails. Conclusão: A campanha editorial das RP, sob a forma de e-mails, foi intensa e recorrente. Os pesquisadores devem estar bem informados sobre o modus operandi das RP para proteger sua própria reputação como autores, assim como a reputação da ciência

Objectives: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. Materials and methods: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. Results: A total of 2,812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1,837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1,751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1,837, 42%) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11% (201/1,837) of the e-mails, and 27% (504/1,837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. Conclusions: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry. METHODS: E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline. RESULTS: A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails. CONCLUSIONS: The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.

Prevalence of dental anxiety in children and adolescents globally: A systematic review with meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Dental anxiety (DA) negatively impacts oral health-related quality of life, and patients with DA usually require more dental treatment time. AIM: To describe the global prevalence of DA in children and adolescents and to examine the influence of individual factors (age, sex, and caries experience) and variables related to DA measurement on pooled prevalence. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses of observational studies published between 1985 and 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42014013879). RESULTS: Searches yielded 1207 unique records; 224 full-text articles were screened, and 50 studies were used in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. No study was considered as having high methodological quality according to 'The Joanna Briggs Institute assessment tool'. Overall pooled DA prevalence was 23.9% (95% CI 20.4, 27.3). Pooled prevalence in preschoolers, schoolchildren, and adolescents was as follows: 36.5% (95% CI 23.8, 49.2), 25.8% (95% CI 19.5, 32.1), and 13.3% (95% CI 9.5, 17.0), respectively. DA was significantly more prevalent in preschool children (one study) and schoolchildren (two studies) with caries experience and in female adolescents (one study). The scale used for DA assessment was shown to influence pooled prevalence in preschoolers and adolescents. CONCLUSION: DA is a frequent problem in 3- to 18-year-olds worldwide, more prevalent in schoolchildren and preschool children than in adolescents.