Gender-specific treatment effects and outcomes reported in orthodontic research. A cross-sectional empirical study.

AIM: To identify practices of assessment of gender effects in research articles in orthodontics and detect whether there were significant differences in the treatment effects on outcomes according to gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four major orthodontic journals were sought over a 3-year period to identify publications which included assessment of gender effects on outcomes in their reporting. Data were extracted on the following characteristics: journal, year of publication, region of authorship, and study design. For the studies including reporting of gender effects, whether a significant effect existed was further documented. Additionally, for these studies, data were extracted on population, sample size per gender, treatment, comparison, outcome type, and nature and whether gender analysis was based on subgroup testing or included as a main effect. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, univariable, and multivariable regression models were utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 718 research articles were eligible for inclusion out of a pool of 1,132 screened articles. Of those, 95 reported on any type of analysis on gender effects (95/718; 13.2%). In the 95 studies that reported assessment of gender effects, it was clear that the majority did not detect significant gender-related differences across the documented outcomes (range of frequency distribution for significant gender differences across all outcomes: 0-50%). Twenty-two articles overall (22/95; 23.2%) described a significant gender effect classified by outcome, 12 favoring female and 10 favoring male participants. Patterns of efficacy and adverse outcomes were schemed either favoring female (root resorption: 4/10; 40.0%, periodontal outcomes: 3/11; 27.3%) or male (cephalometric/growth changes following orthodontic treatment: 4/17; 23.5%) patients across the 22 studies with significant effects. Appropriately designed and adequately powered statistical analyses, with gender effect assessment as a main effect in a multivariable regression model was associated with 6.53 times higher odds for identifying significant gender effects (OR = 6.53; 95% CI: 2.15, 19.8; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A very small proportion of research studies included gender effect assessment in their analyses. Of those, a quarter described significant effects. Nevertheless, careful analysis planning and strategies should be prioritized to allow for any meaningful interpretation.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Platelet Derivate Uses in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

PURPOSE: Concentrated platelet derivatives (PDs) such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been extensively applied in tissue engineering, and particularly in various fields of regenerative dentistry. The purpose of the present citation analysis was to compile the 100 top-cited articles on the PDs uses in oral and maxillofacial surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional search of the relevant studies in the Web of Science citation database was conducted to identify the 100 most-cited articles. All the included papers consisted of independent variables of this analysis. Covariates that were further considered were basic bibliometric indexes, such as publication year, publishing journal, authorship, institution and country of origin, study design, and field of study. The primary outcome variables were citation counts and citation density. A descriptive analysis of secondary outcome variables, namely bibliographic data such as keyword, abstract, title term co-occurrence analysis, thematic map and wordcloud analysis, was performed using the bibliometrix R and VOSviewer software. RESULTS: The total citation count for the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 85 to 1821, with 2002 being the most productive year. With 15 articles, the Journal of Periodontology was the most represented journal, followed closely by the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Clinical Oral Implants Research. The United States published the largest number of papers. Original basic science research studies on implantology and biology dominated the top-cited list. Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews were adequately represented in the top-cited list. Platelet-derived growth factor and osteoprotegerin represented emerging minimally developed themes, while PRP, growth factors and fibrin, along with the applications of PRF in gingival recession and intra bony defects, were considered important motor themes. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides a complete list and in-depth analysis of the 100 most-cited publications relevant to PDs use in oral and maxillofacial surgery, identifying the most important research topics, most impactful authors, institutions, and countries. Though PRP studies were leading the top-cited list, publications focusing on PRF pesented higher citation density values, indicating a continuously increasing citation rate.

Sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy publishing has a gender/sex equity problem: we need action now!

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine (1) the proportion of women authors overall, in first (lead) and last (senior) author positions, (2) the proportion of women research participants and (3) the association between women in first and/or last author positions and the proportion of women research participants in original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces in four sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals. METHODS: The journals evaluated were the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Physical Therapy in Sport and International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy.We reviewed all original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces published in 2008, 2009, 2018 and 2019. For each, we aimed to determine the gender/sex of all authors (through gender pronouns, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, institutional profiles, personal websites, photographs and/or social media), and the gender/sex of study participants reported as 'female' or 'male' or 'women' or 'men' or 'girls' or 'boys'. RESULTS: We included 952 original studies and 219 editorials/opinion pieces. There were 5146 authors of original studies and 706 authors of editorials/opinion pieces. Compared with 2008/2009, the proportion of women as first and last authors was 3.6% (33.0% compared with 29.4%) and 4.8% (33.2% compared with 27.4%) higher respectively in 2018/2019. On average, the proportion of women participants in original studies remained largely unchanged over the 10-year period, only 10% of all participants were women in studies. CONCLUSION: Women are strikingly under-represented in first and last author positions, as are women participants in sports and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals.

Diversity of authors in the British Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics over the last 50 years.

AIMS: To explore any changes in the perceived gender and affiliation of first authors of papers published in the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and Journal of Orthodontics (JO), over the last 50 years. METHODS: Electronic hand searches of the BJO and JO from 1973 to 2021, were undertaken to identify research and clinical papers published the first volume of the BJO (1973-74) and then the first two volumes of each subsequent decade i.e. 1980-81; 1990-91 to 2020-21. Articles such as Editorials, Product Updates and Abstract summaries, were excluded.The perceived gender of the first author was identified from their forename, internet sources and/or personal knowledge, where possible. The country of the first author's affiliation was identified from the author details stated in the papers. The countries were then grouped into geographical areas. RESULTS: A total of 385 papers were identified with a steady increase from 1973 to 2021. There was a statistically significant increase in papers published by authors who were perceived to be female (odds ratio 8.33; 95% CI 4.75, 14.64). The increase in papers published by non-UK affiliated first authors was significant (odds ratio 5.01; 95% CI 2.78, 9.02). CONCLUSIONS: The Journal has seen a significant change, over the last 50 years, in its authorship profile from nearly exclusively male, UK based authors to more than 60% of published papers having a first author who was perceived as being female and 37% originating from outside the UK.

Prolific authorship in orthodontic scientific publishing.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the 10 most numerically prolific authors publishing in the field of orthodontics for each year over the last decade (2011-2020), describe the characteristics of these outputs and identify trends in the types of study being published. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Scopus literature search was conducted to identify the 10 most numerically prolific publishing authors in orthodontics for each year during this decade. Number and characteristics of all publications for each author were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Forty-nine different individual authors were identified who were collectively prolific for between 1-8 years within the assessment decade. These authors published a total of 2025 papers, with a median annual output of 18 papers per year; however, half of these authors published between 15-24 papers per year (range 5-200). Amongst authors, 2 or more collaborated on only 7% of the identified papers. The median number of authors per paper was 5 (range 1-27) with significant variation according to study design (P < .001). The majority of authors originated from Brazil (19.3%), Italy (14.1%) and India (12.7%). Most papers described non-prospective clinical studies (38.1%), case reports or case series (11.1%) and narrative reviews (10.8%). Finally, prolific authors had a smaller annual output when publishing in orthodontic journals (P < .001) and when publishing experimental primary research (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: A cohort of prolific authors in orthodontics between 2011-2020 was identified. Extreme variation was found in annual output between these authors but case reports, non-prospective clinical studies and narrative reviews predominated.

Significant increase in quantity and quality of knee arthroplasty related research in KSSTA over the past 15 years.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate both publication and authorship characteristics in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy journal (KSSTA) regarding knee arthroplasty over the past 15 years. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published in KSSTA between January 1, 2006, and December 31st, 2020, utilising the search term 'knee arthroplasty'. 1288 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were evaluated using the following criteria: type of article, type of study, main topic and special topic, use of patient-reported outcome scores, number of references and citations, level of evidence (LOE), number of authors, gender of the first author and continent of origin. Three time intervals were compared: 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2020. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, publications peaked at 670 articles (52%) compared with 465 (36%) published between 2011 and 2016 and 153 articles (12%) between 2006 and 2010. While percentage of reviews (2006-2010: 0% vs. 2011-2015: 5% vs. 2016-2020: 5%) and meta-analyses (1% vs. 6% vs. 5%) increased, fewer case reports were published (13% vs. 3% vs. 1%) (p < 0.001). Interest in navigation and computer-assisted surgery decreased, whereas interest in perioperative management, robotic and individualized surgery increased over time (p < 0.001). There was an increasing number of references [26 (2-73) vs. 30 (2-158) vs. 31 (1-143), p < 0.001] while number of citations decreased [30 (0-188) vs. 22 (0-264) vs. 6 (0-106), p < 0.001]. LOE showed no significant changes (p = 0.439). The number of authors increased between each time interval (p < 0.001), while the percentage of female authors was comparable between first and last interval (p = 0.252). Europe published significantly fewer articles over time (56% vs. 47% vs. 52%), whereas the number of articles from Asia increased (35% vs. 45% vs. 37%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Increasing interest in the field of knee arthroplasty-related surgery arose within the last 15 years in KSSTA. The investigated topics showed a significant trend towards the latest techniques at each time interval. With rising number of authors, the part of female first authors also increased-but not significantly. Furthermore, publishing characteristics showed an increasing number of publications from Asia and a slightly decreasing number in Europe. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Mandibular canal vs. inferior alveolar canal: Evidence-based terminology analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The mandibular canal, as it was formerly named in Terminologia Anatomica (TA), has also been called the inferior alveolar (nerve) canal in many scientific publications. This study was conducted to investigate how these terms have been understood in different regions and different areas of expertise and to discuss the appropriate future application of the term "mandibular canal." METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, and articles using different terms for this structure were classified into two groups, inferior alveolar canal/inferior alveolar nerve canal (IAC/IANC) and the mandibular canal (MC). The 50 most recent articles in each group were included. Publication year, journal title, country of the first author, and affiliation of all authors were recorded in both groups for all 100 articles. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the IAC/IANC and MC groups in the numbers of anatomy journals, other journals, and anatomy affiliations. Turkey published most frequently with a total of 15 articles, followed by Iran with 10 articles, and China/India/United States with seven each. When the six countries of the first author that had three or more publications in each group were compared, only Turkey appeared in both groups; otherwise, different countries were in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, and considering that the tentative new term "inferior alveolar foramen" is used in the latest TA, we suggest that the mandibular canal should be renamed the "inferior alveolar canal."

Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade.

AIM: To assess the representation of female authors in senior and leading positions in orthodontic research publications, as well as the fraction of women participating in the publication reports, for over a decade. In addition, association of women representation in orthodontic research and characteristics such as journal of publication, year, study design/topic, and others, were sought. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic search was performed within three major orthodontic journals, namely the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), and the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE) to identify all types of research articles published within two distinct year cohorts, the 2008-10 and the 2018-20. The outcomes of interest pertained to proportion of women in senior (last) and leading (first) position, and fraction of overall participation in the author list. RESULTS: A total of 2539 articles were eligible for inclusion, with an overall number of contributing authors being 11 608, of which 34.4% were female. For seniority in authorship, 30.1% (312/1038) of the publications within 2018-20 were attributed to female authors, while 25.8% (388/1501) was identified in 2008-10. Publication timeline, geographic region, and thematic topic of publication were determined as significant predictors. For leading (first) authorship, the respective percentages were 44.7% (464/1038) within 2018-20, and 34.7% (521/1501) in 2008-10. Dissemination timeline, geographic region and journal of publication were identified by the multivariable analysis, as revealing evidence of association with female leading publication authorship. Overall, the median proportion of female authors within the author list was 33.0%. CONCLUSIONS: A gender gap related to Orthodontic research publications is persistent, with participation of women either as senior, or as leading authors, being suboptimal. Consistent efforts should be set in place, to facilitate more equal representation of women in research publishing, being supported by academia.

The Proportion of Female Authors in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature Has not Changed in 20 Years.

PURPOSE: Academic advancement often depends on publications and reflects the leadership within a profession. The present study compared the number of articles written by women in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS) versus the number of women in the profession of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of articles published in JOMS at 3 time points (1995, 2005, and 2015). The primary predictor variables were author gender and the 3 time points (1995, 2005, and 2015). Gender was established by visual inspection. The primary outcome variable was the proportion of articles written by women, defined as number of articles written by a woman divided by the total number of female members in the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). The inclusion criteria were 1) original, full-length research articles in JOMS, 2) authorship by a woman, and 3) articles reported from a US academic institution. A 2-tailed χ2 test was used. The rate of change in female authorship over time was analyzed using linear regression analysis, followed by the F test (statistical significance was set at P < .05). RESULTS: During the years examined, the number of first and last female authors ranged from 3 to 6.3%. Approximately 7% of oral-maxillofacial surgeons registered with AAOMS in 2015 were women. Comparing the expected proportion of female authorship according to the number of female surgeons registered with AAOMS, the proportions of female first authorship were significantly lower than expected in 1995 and 2015. Female authorship was found to be significantly less than expected. Using linear regression analysis, we found no statistically significant changes in the proportion of female first or last authorship in the period examined (P = .69 and P = .99, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the years examined, we found no significant increase in female authorship in JOMS, demonstrating an area of opportunity to improve gender disparity in OMS.

Transoral robotic surgery: Differences between online information and academic literature.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the authorship, content, quality, and readability of information on Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) available to patients online. METHODS: The technical search term "TORS Surgery" and layperson's term "robotic surgery of the mouth" were utilized to conduct a search of the top 50 websites on Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Websites were evaluated according to the HONcode evaluation of content and quality, and readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Formula, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula, SMOG readability formula, Coleman Liau Index formula, and Gunning Fog Index. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Fisher Freeman- Halton test to compare differences in authorship, quality, and content between the three search engines and the Fisher exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in these variables between the two search terms. RESULTS: Overall, websites were predominantly from academic institutions with 97% mentioning benefits of TORS with 24% mentioning risks. 45% of TORS websites had no description of the TORS procedure, while 62% allowed individuals to make appointments. There was a significant difference in authorship with the layperson's terms yielding more news sources, but there were no significant differences in quality and content of information elicited through the technical and layperson search terms. The mean readability scores were Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 13.81(±3.32), Gunning-Fog Index 16.51(±3.39), SMOG 12.53(±2.40), and Automated Readability Index 14.05 (±4.17). CONCLUSIONS: Current online information on TORS surgery may not provide balanced information for patients to make informed healthcare decisions. The current readability of online information regarding TORS far exceeds the average literacy level of average American adults.

Systemic Manifestations of the Periodontal Disease: A Bibliometric Review.

This bibliometric review aimed to identify and analyze the top 100 most-cited publications on the systemic manifestations of periodontal disease (PD). A literature search was performed using the Web of Science (WoS) 'All Databases', without any restriction of language, publication year, or study design. Of 4418 articles, the top 100 were included based on their citation count. After downloading the full texts, their bibliometric information was extracted and analyzed. The citation counts for the top 100 articles ranged from 156 to 4191 (median 217). The most productive years were 2003 and 2005, with 20 articles on the list. Majority of the articles were published in the Journal of Periodontology (n = 25). The top 100 articles were generated primarily from the USA (n = 61). Most of the publications were clinical trials (n = 27) and focused on the cardiovascular manifestations of PD (n = 31). Most of the articles were within the evidence level V (n = 41). A total of 58 studies received funding and the most frequently used keyword in the top articles was "periodontal disease" (n = 39). The current citation analysis presents insights into the current trends in the systemic manifestations of periodontal disease.

A priori power considerations in orthodontic research: a 3 year meta-epidemiologic study.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of a priori power calculations in orthodontic literature and to identify potential associations with a number of study characteristics, including journal, year of publication and statistical significance of the outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic archives of four leading orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, AJODO; European Journal of Orthodontics, EJO; Angle Orthodontist, ANGLE; Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, OCR) were assessed over a 3 year period until December 2018. The proportion of articles reporting a priori power calculations were recorded, and the association with journal, year of publication, study design, continent of authorship, number of centres and researchers, statistical significance of results and reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) was assessed. Univariable and multivariable regression were used to identify significant predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 654 eligible articles were retrieved, with the majority published in the AJODO (n = 246, 37.6%), followed by ANGLE (n = 222, 33.9%) and EJO (n = 139, 21.3%). A total of 233 studies (35.6%) presented power considerations a priori along with sample size calculations. Study design was a very strong predictor with interventional design presenting 3.02 times higher odds for a priori power assumptions compared to observational research [odds ratio (OR): 3.02; 95% CIs: 2.06, 4.42; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation of a priori power considerations for sample size calculations was not universal in contemporary orthodontic literature, while specific study designs such as observational or animal and in vitro studies were less likely to report such considerations.

A 15-Year Review of Trainee Contributions to the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify trainee contributions to the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was retrospective cohort study of research articles published in the JOMS from 2002 to 2016. Predictor variables were the presence and type of trainee author. Outcomes were study topic and design. Comparisons were performed using χ2 tests. To quantify trainee contributions, the 1) number and 2) proportion of articles with a trainee author and 3) the proportion of trainee authors per publication were calculated. The association between time and the number and proportion of trainee articles was determined using simple correlations. The association between time and percentage of trainee authors per publication was determined using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of the 1,455 articles included in this study, 72.0% had at least 1 trainee author and trainees composed 27.6% of all authorships. The number and proportion of trainee articles slowly increased with time, and there was a strong correlation between percentage of trainee articles and publication year (r = 0.86; P < .01). Compared with articles without a trainee, a larger proportion of trainee articles were on orthognathic procedures (P < .01). Trainee articles also had a larger proportion of case reports and series (P = .03) and retrospective cohort studies (P < .01) and a smaller proportion of prospective cohort studies (P = .02), literature reviews and meta-analysis (P < .01), and randomized controlled trials (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Trainee authors contributed to most JOMS articles, and an increasing percentage of articles included trainee authors. Efforts should be made to include trainees in studies with higher levels of evidence.

Statistical testing against baseline in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of within-group comparisons from baseline to follow-up in published orthodontic articles and to identify potential associations between this statistical problem and a number of study characteristics. MATERIALS/METHOD: The most recent 24 issues of four leading orthodontic journals with highest impact factor (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; AJODO, European Journal of Orthodontics; EJO, Angle Orthodontist; ANGLE, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research; OCR) were electronically searched until December 31st 2017. The proportion of articles using comparisons against baseline and interpretation of findings according to within-group comparisons were recorded. The association of this practice with journal, year of publication, study design, continent of authorship, number of centres and researchers, statistical significance of results, and statistical analysis was tested. Univariable and multivariable modified Poisson regression were used to identify significant predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 339 articles were eligible for inclusion with the majority published in ANGLE (n = 157, 46%), followed by AJODO (n = 75, 22%), and EJO (n = 75, 22%). A total of 60 studies (18%) presented interpretation of their findings based on within-group comparisons against baseline in isolation. Statistical significance of the primary outcome was a very strong predictor of the prevalence of this flawed approach (RR: 2.33, 95% CIs: 1.22, 4.43; P = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: The effect of time since publication was not addressed. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Statistical testing and interpretation within groups is prevalent in orthodontic research. Endorsement of accurate conduct and reporting of statistical analyses and interpretation of research findings is important in order to promote optimal inferences to support clinical decision-making.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Lack of Authors and Disclosures in the AAOMS White Papers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate current state of authorship, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest in position papers published by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional review of the position papers published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome variables include position papers published by the AAOMS. Secondary outcome variables include declaration of authorship, financial disclosures, and financial payments. The Open Payments Database for financial disclosures was reviewed for the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year. RESULTS: Ten position papers were published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Of the 10 papers, authorship was listed in 3, and none explicitly addressed the presence or absence of financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Contributors to 3 of the 3 authored papers were found at review of the Open Payments Database to have received industry funding in the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year. The remuneration ranged from less than $1,000 to $554,006.02. CONCLUSION: Position papers published by the AAOMS lack standardization for authorship and statements on potential financial disclosure. The authors suggest full disclosures of authorship and authors' conflicts of interest should be stated on all position papers to provide transparency to the process.

Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995-2015.

PURPOSE: There is increasing emphasis on publication quality and internationalization of author groups in orthopaedic literature. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the type of studies and the level of evidence (LOE) published in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 1995 to 2015. The secondary aim was to analyze trends in authorship characteristics in KSSTA. METHODS: Two reviewers reviewed the table of contents of KSSTA and identified original papers from 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The reviewers graded LOE from Levels I to IV using guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For each article, the total number of authors and country of author group were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 880 papers were analyzed. The proportions in LOE have stayed consistent throughout the study period (n.s.). There has been a significant increase in the number of published articles and the number of Level I and II studies (P < 0.01). Therapeutic articles were the most common type. The mean number of authors per KSSTA article significantly increased from 3.9 to 5.7 over the 20-year period (P < 0.01). The number of represented countries increased yearly and academic institutions from 40 different nationalities published articles in the Journal. Of the examined years, the percent of articles with international collaboration was 17.6%. CONCLUSION: The proportion of LOE I and II articles published in KSSTA remains consistently high. Therapeutic studies are the most frequently published articles. There is an increase in international groups publishing in KSSTA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Authorship characteristics of orthodontic randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in non-orthodontic journals with impact factor.

Background/Objective: This study was conducted to explore authorship characteristics and publication trends of all orthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses (MAs) published in non-orthodontic journals with impact factor (IF). Materials and methods: Appropriate research strategies were developed to search for all articles published until December 2015, without restrictions regarding language or publication status. The initial search generated 4524 results, but after application of the inclusion criteria, the final number of articles was reduced to 274 (SRs: 152; MAs: 36; and RCTs: 86). Various authorship characteristics were recorded for each article. Frequency distributions for all parameters were explored with Pearson chi-square for independence at the 0.05 level of significance. Results: More than half of the included publications were SRs (55.5 per cent), followed by RCTs (31.4 per cent) and MAs (13.1 per cent); one hundred seventy-eight (65 per cent) appeared in dental journals and 96 (35 per cent) were published in non-dental journals. The last decade was significantly more productive than the period before 2006, with 236 (86.1 per cent) articles published between 2006 and 2015. European countries produced 51.5 per cent of the total number of publications, followed by Asia (18.6 per cent) and North America (USA and Canada; 16.8 per cent). Limitations: Studies published in journals without IF were not included. Conclusions/Implications: Level-1 evidence orthodontic literature published in non-orthodontic journals has significantly increased during 2006-15. This indicates a larger interest of other specialty journals in orthodontic related studies and a trend for orthodontic authors to publish their work in journals with impact in broader fields of dentistry and medicine.

Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify predatory journals in nursing, describe their characteristics and editorial standards, and document experiences of authors, peer reviewers, and editors affiliated with these journals. DESIGN: Using two sources that list predatory journals, the research team created a list of nursing journals. In Phase One, the team collected data on characteristics of predatory nursing journals such as types of articles published, article processing charge, and peer review process. In Phase Two, the team surveyed a sample of authors, reviewers, and editors to learn more about their experiences with their affiliated journals. METHODS: Data from the review of predatory nursing journals were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Written comments were summarized and categorized. FINDINGS: There were 140 predatory nursing journals from 75 publishers. Most journals were new, having been inaugurated in the past 1 to 2 years. One important finding was that many journals only published one or two volumes and then either ceased publishing or published fewer issues and articles after the first volume. Journal content varied widely, and some journals published content from dentistry and medicine, as well as nursing. Qualitative findings from the surveys confirmed previously published anecdotal evidence, including authors selecting journals based on spam emails and inability to halt publication of a manuscript, despite authors' requests to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Predatory journals exist in nursing and bring with them many of the "red flags" that have been noted in the literature, including lack of transparency about editorial processes and misleading information promoted on websites. The number of journals is high enough to warrant concern in the discipline about erosion of our scholarly literature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses rely on the published literature to provide evidence for high-quality, safe care that promotes optimal patient outcomes. Research published in journals that do not adhere to the highest standards of publishing excellence have the potential to compromise nursing scholarship and is an area of concern.

Dental research in Spain. A bibliometric analysis on subjects, authors and institutions (1993-2012).

BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics is defined as the use of statistical methods in the analysis of a body of literature to reveal the historical development of subject fields and patterns of authorship, publication, and use. Our objective was to characterize Spanish scientific output in Dentistry through the analysis of Web of Science database in a 20-year period. By means of a bibliometric study documents were statistically analyzed using indicators that showed quantitative and qualitative aspects of the production. Specifically, time course of the scientific production within the time span was analysed, as were the journals where the article was published and the categories of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in which they belong, thematic areas, authorship, and finally authors and institutions with the highest production in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By means of the design of a specific search strategy previously described in the scientific literature, we recovered all citable documents about Dentistry signed by Spanish researchers and included in the WoS database between 1993 and 2012. RESULTS: A total of 3006 documents fulfilled the search criteria, of which 2449 (81.5%) were published in journals within the category Dentistry Oral Surgery and Medicine and 557 (18.5%) within other categories of the JCR. During the four quinquenniums studied, the production increased quantitatively (8.6-fold) and qualitatively. Finally, the universities of Granada and Complutense of Madrid were the institutions with the highest production and most prolific authors. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish dental production sharply increased in the last two decades, reaching quantitative and qualitative levels similar to those of the other medical specialties in the country.