The 300 most cited articles published in periodontology.

OBJECTIVES: It is important to evaluate the characteristics of the most cited articles in any specialty. The number of citations may be a proxy for clinical and research activity. The objectives of the present methodological study were (1) to report the characteristics of the 300 most cited articles in periodontology and (2) to explore the association of these characteristics with the number of citations. METHODS: We searched in the Web of Science database for the 300 most cited articles published in periodontology on June 15, 2015. We described characteristics of the articles such as type of study, type of scientific journal, topic reported, year of publication, affiliation of the first author of the article, and impact factor. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations of these variables with the number of citations. RESULTS: The search retrieved approximately 155,356 publications; out of the studies that met the eligibility criteria, the 300 most cited were included for analysis. Comprising more than 50 % of the included articles, basic biology and the detection of bacteria were the most prevalent topics. Narrative reviews were the most frequent type of article (27 % of the sample). Regression analysis demonstrated that some characteristics, for example "narrative reviews," are more prone to be cited than others. CONCLUSION: We conclude that scientific evolution in periodontology has been based more on narrative reviews than on reproducible systematic reviews. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future research is encouraged to elucidate the extent to which scientific progress is improved through systematic compared with narrative reviews.

Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument. METHODS: The six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry. Two assessors independently selected consensus guidelines, and four assessors independently evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Disagreements in the selection and evaluation of guidelines were resolved by consensus. First, the consensus guidelines were analysed alone. Then, systematic reviews conducted to support the guidelines were included in the analysis. Non-parametric statistics for dependent variables (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare both groups. RESULTS: Of 258 initially retrieved articles, 27 consensus guidelines were selected. Median scores in four domains (applicability, rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence), expressed as percentages of maximum possible domain scores, were below 50% (median, 26%, 30.70%, 41.70%, and 41.70%, respectively). The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological improvement of consensus guidelines published in major implant dentistry journals is needed. The findings of the present study may help researchers to better develop consensus guidelines in implant dentistry, which will improve the quality and trust of information needed to make proper clinical decisions.

Correction: Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170262.].