A Bibliometric Mapping Study of the Literature on Oral Health-related Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Oral health is an indispensable component of overall health, and oral health status significantly influences people's physical, mental, and social well-being. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), an important and widely used dental patient-reported outcome (dPRO), is attracting more and more researchers' attention and interest. This study aimed to analyze and map the existing scientific literature regarding OHRQoL through a bibliometric approach, including a summary of the characteristics of OHRQoL-related publications, the identification of prolific entities, high-frequency keywords analysis, and research trend analysis via periodic high-impact keywords. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection to collect OHRQoL-related original research and review articles. After examination and deduplication, the following bibliometric information was extracted from each article: title, abstract, keywords, authors, affiliations, geographic origin (countries/regions), year of publication, journal name, and references. Various scientometric mapping tools including Microsoft Office spreadsheet, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny R-package software, and Scimago Graphica were used to analyze basic bibliometric parameters, leading producers, high-impact keywords, and research trends. RESULTS: A total of 3324 OHRQoL-related articles (3119 original research articles and 205 review papers) were collected, which received 65,704 citations. A total of 9950 authors from 2429 organizations contributed to this body of research. Prolific authors from Europe, USA, Brazil, New Zealand, China, and Canada were identified, and they also centered collaboration clusters in the co-author network. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology was the most prolific journal. Twenty-one keywords with more than 200 occurrences, and 23 keywords with more than 150 occurrences, were identified for publications of 1994-2021 and 2012-2021, respectively. Keyword analysis revealed hot topics such as instrument development and validation, studies targeting children and adolescents, as well as clinical studies in operative dentistry, implantology, orthodontics, and community dentistry. Oral Health Impact Profile is the most commonly used instrument in OHRQoL-related research. CONCLUSIONS: OHRQoL is an impactful topic in dental health care as it is not only useful in dental research and patient-centered clinical outcome measures but also provides valuable guidance in dental public health administration and policy making. OHRQoL-related research presents a dynamic landscape and is expected to continue presenting high productivity and broad application in the future.

Expert panels as a reference standard in orthodontic research: An assessment of published methods and reporting.

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.

Etiquette in scientific publishing.

Publishing a scientific article in a journal with a high impact factor and a good reputation is considered prestigious among one's peer group and an essential achievement for career progression. In the drive to get their work published, researchers can forget, either intentionally or unintentionally, the ethics that should be followed in scientific publishing. In an environment where "publish or perish" rules the day, some authors might be tempted to bend or break rules. This special article is intended to raise awareness among orthodontic journal editors, authors, and readers about the types of scientific misconduct in the current publishing scenario and to provide insight into the ways these misconducts are managed by the Committee of Publishing Ethics. Case studies are presented, and various plagiarism detection software programs used by publishing companies are briefly described.

Are advertisements in dental journals supported by an appropriate evidence-base?

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.

What's in a title? An assessment of whether randomized controlled trial in a title means that it is one.

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.

Response rates to questionnaire-based studies in the contemporary dental literature: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to investigate what is a reasonable response rate for dental questionnaire-based studies in recent literature and to assess the factors that affect the response rates. METHODS: We used MEDLINE/PubMed to search the dental literature of 2021 (January-October). Two reviewers independently assessed studies eligibility and extracted data using standardized electronic extraction form. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two studies were eligible, of these a total of 149 response rates were reported from 133 studies, whereas the remaining 39 studies were excluded as they did not report response rates. The median response rate across the included studies was 77% (mean = 70.8%). We found significant negative correlation between the response rate and the actual number of distributed questionnaires (sample size) (r = -0.4127; P < 0.001). We also found an association between the response rate and the area of distribution, e.g., national or international (P = 0.0012). However, a wide variation was observed in the quality of information reported within this review and we did not find clear evidence of association between the response rate and other variables such as questionnaire piloting, number of questions in the questionnaire and the journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review confirm the association between the response rate and the sample size, where the response rate increases when the sample size less than 300 participants. In addition, a higher response rate could be achieved when the study conducted within the same institution (e.g., university). SIGNIFICANCE: Questionnaire-based research can provide answers to several questions that could not be answered by other types of research related to the field of dentistry, dental health practitioners and students' attitudes and behaviours and more. Questionnaire-based publications can effectively contribute to dental research; thus, dental journals should consider development of a minimum set of guidelines in the reporting of questionnaire-based manuscripts.

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.

Systematic reviews of topical fluorides for dental caries: a review of reporting practice.

This paper aims to assess systematic reviews on the caries-preventive effect of topical fluorides, identifying key content and reporting quality issues to be considered by researchers planning a review in this area. Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of any topical fluoride intervention for caries control were included. Relevant databases were searched (December 2009), along with reference lists of included publications. Thirty-eight reports were identified and assessed. A majority of these focused on the child/adolescent population, fluoride toothpastes, no treatment/placebo comparisons, and had caries increment as the main outcome. Complete reporting of eligibility criteria (PICOS) was uncommon, except in Cochrane reviews. Less than half reported searching multiple sources and only one third reported a search strategy. Duplicate study selection and data extraction was reported in 27 (71%) and 16 (42%) reviews, respectively; quality assessment of included studies was not reported in one third of the reviews. Meta-analysis was reported in 20 (52%) reviews, with six not reporting the methods of synthesis used, 17 formally assessing heterogeneity, and 12 reporting analyses for its exploration. This study shows that some content features have been covered more often than others in existing fluoride reviews, while some relevant features are yet to be addressed. Also, reporting of several methodological aspects are below an acceptable level, except for Cochrane reviews. Current reporting guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions (e.g. PRISMA) and sources of high-quality existing reviews (e.g. The Cochrane Library) should be closely followed to enhance the validity and relevance of future topical fluoride reviews.

The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in dental public health.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in dental public health journals. METHOD: Electronic and hand searches were used to search for RCTs published in the following three journals over the period 1993 - 2008: Community Dental Health, Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology and the Journal of Public Health Dentistry. Exclusion criteria were applied. Each of the resulting papers was reviewed and scored, according to 56 criteria, based on the CONSORT statement. RESULTS: The search identified 48 papers. The average number of criteria present per article was 27.0 (SD = 6.9), with variation between journals as follows: Community Dental Health (27.7); Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology (27.4); Journal of Public Health Dentistry (23.2). The average number of criteria present per article increased over the time period used. CONCLUSION: There were inadequacies in the reporting of trials in dental public health journals. The quality of the reporting could be improved if the CONSORT statement was followed more closely.

Interview with the editor: David L. Turpin by Robert P. Scholz.

David L. Turpin has worked on dental journals for over 30 years--from his early days on the Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists Bulletin, to the Angle Orthodontist, and to the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. He will retire as editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at the end of 2010.

How well do reports of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature comply with the CONSORT statement?

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether clinical trials published in the orthodontic literature comply with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and whether compliance has changed over time. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE: Clinical trials published in four orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, and Journal of Orthodontics) at three time points [1995/6 (pre-CONSORT), 2000/1 (post-CONSORT) and 2005/6 (post revised-CONSORT)]. METHODS: Trials were scored using a 36-point checklist developed from the CONSORT statement. Each item on the checklist was scored as either included, not included, or not applicable if the trial design did not allow its inclusion. The proportion of trials describing randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding was also calculated. The mean scores were compared between time points and between journals. RESULTS: A total of 151 reports were included. The mean score was 41·5% (SD 10·3). The mean post-CONSORT score was higher than the pre-CONSORT score (P = 0·01; WMD, 5·73; 95% CI, 1·64-9·82), and the mean post revised-CONSORT was also higher than the pre-CONSORT score (P = 0·01; WMD, 4·44; 95% CI, 1·02-7·87). At the post revised-CONSORT time point, the mean score in the journals which had adopted the CONSORT statement was higher than for those which had not (P<0·001; chi square, 17·78; df = 3). Reporting of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was inadequate at all three time points. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature has improved since the publication of the CONSORT statement, particularly in journals which have adopted the statement. However, the reporting of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding remains inadequate.

Dental research in Iran: a bibliometric analysis of electronically available literature.

PURPOSE: To carry out a bibliometric analysis of all electronically available dental literature in Iran from 1983 to 2006, in order to study availability and examine trends. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Accessing all electronically available Iranian dental articles published in domestic journals, and comparing the results with Iranian dental articles published in Pubmed. The following data were collected from each article: name of journal, year of publication, number of authors, gender of corresponding author, academic levels of authors, main language of article, language of abstract, study environment, population studied, field of dentistry, type of article, design strategy, design of study, and analysis design. RESULTS: In terms of publications in domestic journals, a total of 1,994 dental articles were electronically available, published in six different dental journals in Iran. Majority of articles, 84.5%, were original studies. In terms of design strategy, 49.7% of studies were cross-sectional, 35.5% were prospective, and 14.8% were retrospective studies. The main language of 99.3% of articles was Farsi, and 0.7% was English. Majority of articles, 38.7%, were written by two authors. Gender of corresponding author in 66.7% of articles was male, and in 33.3% of articles was female. There was an increasing trend in percentage of original studies, clinical trials and female corresponding authors. In terms of publications in Pubmed, a total of 75 dental articles from Iran were electronically available. Significant differences were revealed in terms of number of authors, study types and design strategies when compared to publications in domestic journals. CONCLUSION: A number of encouraging trends were identified, which is a reflection of improvements in quality of domestic electronic dental literature. However, as the majority of articles are written in Farsi, availability of research evidence to the international community is limited. Overall, results of this study indicate the need for future bibliometric analyses which can be used to construct a comprehensive database that will assist in evidence-based clinical decision making.

Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be of high quality to support the conclusions reached by the authors. Poor-quality reporting has been associated with an overestimation in intervention efficacy. Within the field of paediatric dentistry, no study has assessed the quality of reporting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess published RCTs in paediatric dental journals between 1985 and 2006 for: (i) whether quality of reporting allows readers to assess the validity of trials; and (ii) whether quality of reporting has improved since the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. METHODS: Hand search of the main paediatric dentistry journals; inclusion criteria were: the trial was performed on children, and RCT. CONSORT guidelines were made into an operational checklist. Trials published between 1985 and 1997, and between 1998 and 2006 were compared to determine any improvement since the publication of the CONSORT guidelines. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three of 5635 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting quality was poor overall and showed heterogeneity. It had improved slightly since the publication of CONSORT. Few trials were reported adequately. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of clinical trials is poor, and often not adequate to allow readers to assess trial validity. Overall quality of reporting has not substantially improved since the publication of CONSORT.