Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses.

INTRODUCTION: Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success. LIMITATIONS: Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies. CONCLUSIONS: On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get published.

Randomized controlled trials: what are they and who needs them?

Dentistry is rapidly entering a new era of evidence-based practice, and society is demanding prevention and treatment that has been proven to be effective in terms of meaningful health outcomes. Practitioners, individual patients and the public need randomized controlled trials because they provide the highest level of scientific evidence to change clinical practice and inform public health policy. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are conceptually simple but deceptively complex to design, implement and translate into clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials are fundamentally different from observational clinical research because they randomly assign volunteers to receive test or control interventions, they are prospective and the success of the test intervention is based on a meaningful clinical outcome that is specified before the trial begins. To be successful, randomized controlled trials must be carefully designed and powered to answer a specific question that will be generalizable to the population under study. Randomized controlled trials can be designed to evaluate efficacy, effectiveness, superiority, equivalence or noninferiority. Prominent issues and challenges in designing and conducting randomized controlled trials include carefully defining enrollment criteria, establishing an organizational infrastructure, use of a data-coordinating center, developing a manual of procedures, obtaining informed consent, recruiting and ensuring the safety of volunteer subjects, ensuring data quality, analysis and publication of trial outcomes, and translating results into clinical practice.

The evidence base for oral and maxillofacial surgery: 10-year analysis of two journals.

All articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 1999 and December 2009 were classified by study design and evaluated to find the evidence base in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Those in related specialties, and the impact factor of related dental journals were also compared. From a total of 3294 articles (1715 (52%) BJOMS; and 1579 (48%) IJOMS) most of the studies were observational or descriptive (36% BJOMS; and 31% IJOMS). Review articles constituted 5% in the British Journal and 6% in the International Journal. Analytical (non-controlled) studies made up 6% and 7% of the studies in the British Journal and the International Journal, respectively. There were 28 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (2%) in the British Journal and 40 (3%) in the International Journal. One meta-analysis was recorded in the International Journal, and one closed loop audit was recorded in the British Journal. Forty percent of the papers in both journals were non-clinical, scientific, or animal studies. The number of RCTs published in OMFS is low and is comparable with the related specialties of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) (1%) and plastic surgery (4%). Greater effort is required to carry out quality research if we are to provide the best possible evidence to patients for our interventions.

A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: the fundamentals of research.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: This is the first of a series of articles summarizing the basic principles and methods of research with an emphasis on clinical investigation. In today's environment of evidence-based practice, the prevention of, diagnosis of, prognosis for and treatment of oral diseases must be based on a critical evaluation of available research. The purpose of this series is to help practitioners understand research and develop skills in interpreting research published in the medical and dental literature. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Research involves systematic investigation and can be categorized in different ways. Primary research may take several forms and includes basic and applied research. Basic research seeks fundamental knowledge without having a specific application; applied research is conducted for the purpose of a specific application and often is predicated on basic research findings. Applied research may take several forms and includes clinical research, which seeks to inform patients, clinicians, public health workers and policymakers about methods of preventing and treating diseases. Secondary research involves the use of existing data and results of published scientific studies. Systematic literature reviews are a form of secondary research that attempt to remove bias often associated with narrative reviews.

Research in prosthodontics: a 10-year observation of trends in topics, collaboration, and funding.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to investigate the nature of recently published prosthodontic literature, to investigate the types of collaboration and funding as well as their relationship, and to analyze the associations between collaboration and extramural funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three peer-reviewed prosthodontic journals were used for the analysis of articles published in 1998, 2003, and 2008. The articles were analyzed based on associations between the type of article, type of original research, collaboration, and funding. The chi-square test and logistic regression were used for data analysis (a = .05). RESULTS: From 998 articles, a significant decrease in reviews (P < .001) and an increase in case reports (P = .001) were observed. Articles regarding dental materials ranged from 53% to 58% of the total original research, and the amount of collaboration among disciplines (P = .012), institutions (P < .001), and countries (P = .014) increased from 1998 to 2008. Most studies (77.5%) did not report funding, and articles related to dental materials had the most collaboration and funding. Dental materials (48%), clinical care (37%), and education/public health research (7%) were supported by private companies, and biomedical and translational studies were mostly supported by a university (13%) or the government (7%). A strong association was noted between collaboration (P = .010), extramural funding, and original research, especially related to education/public health (P < .001), clinical care (P = .013), and dental materials (P = .004). CONCLUSION: An increase in original research and collaboration was observed from 1998 to 2008. Studies that reported funding remained constant. A strong association with collaboration and funding was observed, along with studies involving clinical care, education, public health, and dental materials.

What are we reading now? An update on the papers published in the orthodontic literature (1999-2008).

AIMS: To assess differences between articles published in the Journal of Orthodontics (JO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from 1999 to 2008 and compare longitudinal publication profiles. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational. METHODS: The main study examined articles from the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and Angle Orthodontist alongside the JO and EJO. All journals were hand-searched to identify eligible articles. A random sample from these articles was obtained to provide 80% power to detect a 100% increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the 5% level of significance. Each article was classified according to pre-determined criteria by one author (RG). Variations between journals were assessed using the chi-squared test or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A random sample of 425 articles was obtained from 4301 eligible articles, of which 113 were from the JO or EJO. About 34·5% of articles were from the JO and 66·5% the EJO. Statistically significant differences were found between the type (P<0·001), subject (P=0·049), method/direction (P=0·038) and controls (P=0·006) of articles published in the two journals. When compared longitudinally the proportion of RCTs published between 1989 and 1993 (2·8%) and 1999-2008 (18·5%) was statistically significant (OR=8·0, 95% CI 2·8, 23·1). Statistically significant differences were seen over time in all aspects investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found in the publication profiles of the two orthodontic journals during the period examined and longitudinally. A piece of clinical research was 8 times more likely to be an RCT during 1999-2008, compared to 1989-1993.

What are we reading? An analysis of the orthodontic literature 1999 to 2008.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess differences between articles published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO), the Angle Orthodontist (AO), the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and the Journal of Orthodontics (JO) from 1999 to 2008. METHODS: All journals were hand-searched and 4301 eligible articles were identified. A random sample of 425 articles was obtained to provide 80% power to detect a 100% increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the 5% level of significance. Each article was classified according to predetermined criteria. Variations between journals were assessed using the χ(2) test or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The AJO-DO published 45.6% of the articles in the final sample, 27.7% were from the AO, 17.4% were from the EJO, and 9.2% were from the JO. Statistically significant differences were found between the type (P <0.001), subject (P <0.001), setting (P <0.03), and method (P <0.001) of articles published in the 4 journals. The increase in the proportion of RCTs published between 1999 and 2003 and 2004 to 2008 was not statistically significant (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.29, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found in the publication profiles of the 4 orthodontic journals examined, but the increase in RCTs was lower than anticipated.

A systematic review of medical interventions for oral submucous fibrosis and future research opportunities.

Oral Diseases (2011) 17 (Suppl. 1), 42-57 Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic, insidious disease caused by areca nut use, and is associated with both significant morbidity (including pain and reduced oral opening) and an increased risk for malignancy. This systematic review explored and updated the current medical (i.e., non-surgical) interventions available for the management of OSF. Of the 27 published medical interventions, there were four randomized controlled trials. The overall quality of these randomized controlled studies was assessed using the GRADE approach and significant limitations that challenged the conclusions were found. However, this review was valuable in terms of identifying opportunities to provide recommendations for future research, in terms of the populations to research, the types of interventions needed, the types of outcomes to be measured, the study designs needed, and the infrastructure required to conduct studies. The next step is to initiate a pathway for a low-cost research plan leading to the development of a brief protocol for future clinical trials in this field, with an emphasis on conducting studies in regions of the world where OSF is prevalent.

Methods of qualitative research in dentistry: a review.

UNLABELLED: Over the last decade, researchers in health services research started using qualitative research methods. This has led to a corresponding rise in the reporting of the qualitative research studies in medical and related journals, including dental journals. Qualitative research is often contrasted with quantitative research as a set of 'non quantitative methods', since it does not deal with numbers and enumerate phenomena. It interprets the information people bring to research, which helps us to understand social phenomena in natural settings like their own territory, in their own language and on their own terms, giving emphasis to the meaning, experience and view of all the participants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article will help the clinician to understand the importance of in-depth knowledge of behaviour and social phenomena around the patient.

A guide to the appraisal of research: 1. The nature of research.

UNLABELLED: Evidence-based dentistry has grown in recent years. The oceans of journals and research papers can be difficult to navigate. Gauging the quality of such publications and, more importantly, their clinical relevance may be challenging.This narrative review explores the nature and relevance of dental research to clinical dentistry and provides simple guidelines for critical appraisal of such research. In this respect, all dental clinical practice should be underpinned, where possible, with evidence that treatments carried out are contemporary and effective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A working knowledge of dental research and its relevance to clinical practice should allow practitioners to select best evidence to inform their clinical practice.

Featuring dental education research: applying the principles of action research to improve teaching of dental prosthetics.

This article focuses on educational research conducted at the newly merged UWC faculty of dentistry. The research emphasises the change in teaching methods employed to address the concerns experienced in teaching the new large classes as observed in the prosthetic techniques module. These educational interventions were conducted over 5 years and the study design included the principles of action research. Students were assisted in learning the theory of the practical procedures and the subsequent completion of these procedures with the accurate application of the theoretical concepts. Changes in the teaching methods enhanced students learning and successful translation of the theory into practical work. The active learning exercises incorporated into the teaching further motivated and assisted students with deep learning. The debates indicated that students know and accept the value of the module as part of their training.

Research approaches in prosthodontics.

Many current studies of prosthodontic treatment use patient-based outcomes. Traditionally, these outcomes are measured using quantitative methods. However, qualitative research methods can provide important information that cannot be found using quantitative techniques. In this article, the authors review quantitative and qualitative research studies. Differences, advantages and disadvantages of each method are highlighted. Prosthodontic researchers are encouraged to combine these methods to benefit from the potential of each of these approaches.

The importance of the study design: from the case report to the randomised controlled clinical trial.

This section presents concise educational articles for practising dentists. The series aims to educate practitioners regarding statistics and methods of conducting and interpreting research.

Seen but not heard: a systematic review of the place of the child in 21st-century dental research.

BACKGROUND: The position of children in society has changed with increasing emphasis on children's rights and child-centred services. This study aimed to describe the extent to which contemporary oral health research has been conducted with or on children. DESIGN: A systematic review of the child dental literature from 2000-2005 was conducted. A purposive sample was used to develop categories describing the level of involvement of children in research. Four main categories were developed: children as the objects of research, proxies used on behalf of children, children as the subjects of research with some involvement and children as active participants with their perspectives explored. Electronic databases were searched and exclusion criteria applied. Each of the resulting papers was examined and categorised. The frequency distribution in each category and the distribution of these categories according to subject were calculated. RESULTS: The search revealed 3266 papers after application of the exclusion criteria. Of these, 87.1% were categorised as research where children were used as objects, 5.7% were found to involve proxies (parents or clinicians), 7.0% involved children to some extent and 0.3% involved children actively. CONCLUSION: Most oral health research is conducted on children, in future research should strive to be conducted with children, involving them as fully as possible.