THE STRUCTURE FORMAT OF ABSTRACTS: A SURVEY OF LEADING DENTAL JOURNALS AND THEIR EDITORS.

OBJECTIVES: To present the actual usage of different structure formats in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in SCIE-indexed dental journals, and to assess the awareness, knowledge, as well as attitudes towards the structured formats of RCT and SR abstracts among editors-in-chief (EICs) of dental journals. METHODS: In the first part of this study, we selected SCIE-indexed dental journals and assessed their eligibility according to pre-determined criteria. All RCTs and SRs published in the included journals during January-June 2020 were identified through a hand-search. The actual usage of different structure formats and headings, as well as relevant editorial policies were extracted. In the second part, an anonymous online survey among the EICs of included dental journals was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 88 journals were included, from which 364 RCT abstracts and 130 SR abstracts were identified. For RCT abstracts, 86% were structured, with 83% in IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 3% in highly structured (HS) format. For SR abstracts, 80% were structured, including 73% in IMRaD and 7% in HS format. According to the "instructions to authors", most journals required either IMRaD (68%) or HS (5%) for RCTs, while less than half required either IMRaD (36%) or HS (9%) for SRs. Twenty-one (24%) EICs participated in our survey, among which 18 agreed that structured formats could improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts, while only 12 of them thought HS format should be widely recommended in the dental field. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the HS format, IMRaD was more frequently used and required among RCT and SR abstracts in dentistry. Structured formats held a relatively high degree of recognition among EICs of dental journals. Joint efforts are needed for improving the awareness and usage of HS format.

The Salzmann Index and discrepancy index correlation: Determining a threshold discrepancy index score for Medicaid approval.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare patients' Salzmann Index scores for those who applied for Medicaid orthodontic coverage in Pennsylvania with their corresponding American Board of Orthodontics discrepancy index (DI) scores to assess if there is a correlation between Salzmann and DI scores. In addition, a threshold DI score was calculated that would correspond to Medicaid coverage approval. The study intended to answer the following questions: is there a correlation of 0.7 or greater between a patient's Salzmann Index and their DI? If so, is there a particular DI score that can be used as the minimum score for approving Medicaid orthodontic coverage in the state of Pennsylvania? METHODS: Salzmann Index scores, DI scores, and approval and disapproval results for Medicaid orthodontic coverage were obtained from 104 subjects aged between 10 and 17 years. A linear regression model was generated to assess if there was a correlation between the Salzmann scores and DI scores. If a correlation coefficient of 0.7 or greater were found, a threshold Salzmann Index score would be determined for subjects who were approved for Medicaid orthodontic coverage. The threshold Salzmann score would be used in the linear regression formula to find the corresponding DI score, which would be designated as the threshold DI score for approval for Medicaid orthodontic coverage in the state of Pennsylvania. RESULTS: A Pearson correlation of 0.453 was calculated between the 104 Salzmann scores and DI scores, demonstrating a moderate correlation. With the correlation coefficient being lower than 0.7, binary logistic regressions were calculated to assess the predictability between a given Salzmann score and approval and disapproval for Medicaid orthodontic coverage. The Salzmann score had an overall 68.3% success in predicting Medicaid orthodontic coverage approval/disapproval. Of the 58 subjects that were approved for Medicaid orthodontic coverage, 46.6% had Salzmann scores equal to or greater than 25. Of the 46 subjects that were disapproved for Medicaid orthodontic coverage, 78.3% had Salzmann scores equal to or less than 24. CONCLUSIONS: With the lack of high prediction rates seen from the results of the regression models, the current system of Medicaid does not appear to show consistency for assessing the need for orthodontic treatment coverage. Multiple insurance companies that participate under Medicaid require a Salzmann score of 25 or greater for approval; however, the results show the Salzmann score is arbitrary in terms of approval and disapproval. There appear to be underlying factors apart from the Salzmann score that the Pennsylvania Medicaid system uses to justify whether a patient was approved or denied for coverage.

PRESUMED PREDATORY JOURNALS ARE ABUNDANT IN ORAL HEALTH.

OBJECTIVE: to identify characteristics of presumed predatory (PP) journals, presumed legitimate open access (PLOA) journals, and presumed legitimate subscription (PLS) journals published in dentistry. METHODS: We assessed presumed predatory (PP), presumed legitimate open access (PLOA) and presumed legitimate subscription (PLS) journals using indicators reported in the literature consisting of 29 items in the form of questions in a cross-sectional setting. The indicators formed the basis for the 13 salient characteristics of PP journals that were used to generate scores. Greater scores would imply that the journal was more likely to be predatory compared to lower score journals. Associations between predatory score and journal type were examined using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and classification to the 3 groups based on the article characteristics was implemented using the random forest approach. RESULTS: From the 580 potentially eligible journals, 431 dental journals were included: 226 PP (52%), 111 (26%) PLOA, and 94 (22%) PLS. There were significant differences in the predatory score among the three groups; PP journals had the highest mean score and PLS journals the lowest mean score. Mention or reporting to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) database and journals´website with distorted or blurry images were the most influential variables for accurate classification into a predatory category or not. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that some specific characteristics such as distorted images and grammatical errors are more prominent in PP dental journals.

Factors Associated With Low and High Article Citations in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature.

PURPOSE: We assessed the factors in reported oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) studies associated with the number of citations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all primary research studies reported from 1998 to 2008 in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS), British Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS), and Journal of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery. Of the identified studies, 66 had obtained only 0 to 3 citations in the 10 years after publication. We compared these lowest cited reports with the 66 highest cited reports. The characteristics of the lowest and highest cited studies were compared using bivariate analysis. Logistic regression analysis using generalized estimating equations was conducted to examine the association between the selected article-, author-, and journal-level characteristics and high citations. RESULTS: On the initial bivariate analysis, highly cited studies were associated with greater abstract and manuscript word counts (P < .0001), manuscript pages (P < .0001), figures (P = .0482), sample sizes (P = .0149), and references (P < .0001). They were also more likely to have reported a significant result (P = .0202), been published in JOMS (P = .0405), and covered topics such as dentoalveolar/implantology and trauma/reconstruction (P = .0002). Lowly cited articles were more likely to have been published in BJOMS (P = .0405) and addressed topics unrelated to core OMS procedures (P = .0002). The H-indexes of the first and corresponding authors were greater in the high-citation group (P < .0001). After multivariate analysis, a greater number of manuscript pages (P = .0015) and classification as dentoalveolar/implantology (P = .0017) or trauma/reconstruction (P = .0368) had greater odds of high citations. In addition, a higher H-index for the first author made it more likely to be in the high-citation group (P = .0397). CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few studies in the OMS literature failed to produce citations in the 10 years after publication, indicating that most studies accepted for publication provide meaningful contributions. Significant differences were found between the highest and lowest cited publications, suggesting that study design and article structure might influence the articles' audience and effect.

Factors associated with the publication outcomes of paediatric proceedings presented at 2010-2016 the International Associations for Dental Research annual meetings.

The International Associations for Dental Research (IADR) annual meeting is one of the most important dental meetings throughout the world, and researches about paediatric dentistry presented in this platform are often used to guide clinical work. To evaluate the publication outcomes of oral and poster paediatric proceedings, which were accepted by the International Associations for Dental Research (IADR), annual meetings from 2010 to 2016 and to analyse the possible factors influencing an abstract's progression to publication. Oral and poster abstracts were retrieved from the official website of IADR (2010-2016). Searching for subsequent publications was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar (up to March 2019). Two authors independently selected studies, collected, and analysed data. A total of 1396 abstracts were identified, including 275 oral presentations and 1121 poster presentations. Finally, 606 were published in peer-reviewed journals, with a publication rate of 43.41%. Abstracts were published earlier if it is from Europe, well funded, presented orally, or with large sample size. The high publication rate of the IADR proceedings supported the impact of IADR annual meetings on paediatric dentistry in the last 10 years.

Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and are likely to influence clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the reporting quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease and assessed the associated factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Pubmed database was searched for periodontal RCTs published in Science Citation Indexed (SCI) dental journals from 2010/01/01 to 2019/07/17. Information was extracted from the abstracts according to a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline checklist. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and the statistical associations were examined using the linear regression analysis (P<0.05). RESULTS: This study retrieved 1715 articles and 249 of them were finally included. The average overall CONSORT score was 15.6 ± 3.4, which represented 40.9% (±0.6) of CONSORT criteria filling. The reporting rate of some items (trial design, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, harms, registration) was less than 30%. The adequate reporting rate of some items (participants, randomization, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per protocol analysis) was no more than 4%. None of the abstracts reported funding. According to the multivariable linear regression results, number of authors (P=0.030), word count (P<0.001), continent (P=0.003), structured format (P<0.001), type of periodontal disease (P<0.001) and international collaboration (P=0.023) have a significant association with reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease in SCI dental journals remained suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve RCT abstracts reporting quality.

The quality of reporting RCT abstracts in four major orthodontics journals for the period 2012-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Clear reporting of the abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) facilitates the assessment and identification of such trials. AIM: To assess whether authors in the orthodontic field of research currently report RCT abstracts adequately, as defined by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. DESIGN: An observational retrospective study. METHODS: Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in (1) American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO), (2) Angle Orthodontist (AO), (3) European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) and (4) Journal of Orthodontics (JO) for the period from January 2012 to December 2017. The completeness of the abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified CONSORT for abstract statement checklist. RESULTS: A total of 3678 articles were retrieved, but only 224 RCT abstracts were identified and assessed. A high volume of RCTs were published with either the AO (39%) or AJO-DO (32%); the majority of the RCT abstracts (93.6%) were structured. The mean overall abstract reporting quality score was 69.1% (95% confidence interval = 67.5-70.7). In relation to individual quality items, the majority of the RCT abstracts (range = 96-100%) demonstrated clear reporting of the author/contact details, trial design, participants, interventions, objectives, outcomes, number of participants randomised to each group, recruitment, results and conclusions. However, reporting of the title, trial registration, funding and number of analysed participants were only moderately adequate and reporting of the assessment of blinding and adverse events were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: As several CONSORT reporting items were poorly reported, it is the responsibility of authors, referees and editors alike to ensure that the CONSORT guidelines are followed.

Bibliometric profile of Tunisian medical publications written in English and indexed in Medline.

BACKGROUND: English is becoming nowadays the universal language of science. Rresearch published in English can be considered as a bibliometric indicator of the scientific productivity. AIM: We sought to describe the evolution of the Tunisian medical publications written in English over the period from 2004 to 2014. METHODS: Medline's database was consulted using a research query associating the names of the country and the main university cities both in French and in English. The articles with a Tunisian health affiliation were retained but the articles of dentistry, pharmacy and non-medical fields were not included. RESULTS: We counted 979 English language Tunisian medical articles published during the three tracer years of the study: 2004, 2009 and 2014. The increase rate was about 38% between 2004 and 2014. The contribution of medical fields in English language publications was important but showed a clear decrease over time. The retrieved articles did not have the same distribution according to the specialties and the institutions. The distribution according to the journals showed that these articles were mainly published by foreign journals with an increasing impact factors between 2004 and 2014. CONCLUSION: The English language Tunisian medical productivity had shown an important increase over time but many specialties and institutions still not enough implicated in this production.Therefore, increasing research funding, improving the physicians' research methodology and English writing capacities are likely needed to improve the Tunisian medical output.

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Foundation Research and Fellowship Awards: A 26-Year Review at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review outcomes of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) Foundation's funding awards to members of the OMS department at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in terms of projects completed, abstracts presented, peer-reviewed publications, and career trajectories of recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from MGH and OMS Foundation records and interviews with award recipients. Primary outcome variables included 1) number of awards and award types, 2) funding amount, 3) project completion, 4) number of presented abstracts, 5) conversion from abstracts to publications, 6) number of peer-reviewed publications, 7) career trajectories of awardees, and 8) additional extramural funding. RESULTS: Eleven Student Research Training Awards provided $135,000 for 39 projects conducted by 37 students. Of these, 34 (87.2%) were completed. There were 30 student abstracts presented, 21 peer-reviewed publications, and a publication conversion rate of 58.8%. Faculty research awards comprised $1,510,970 for 22 research projects by 12 faculty members and two research fellows. Of the 22 funded projects, 21 (95.5%) were completed. There were 110 faculty and research fellow abstracts presented and 113 peer-reviewed publications, for a publication conversion rate of 93.8%. In the student group, 17 of 37 (45.9%) are enrolled in or are applying for OMS residencies. Of the 10 students who have completed OMS training, 3 (30%) are in full-time academic positions. Of the 12 faculty recipients, 9 (75%) remain in OMS academic practice. During this time period, the department received $9.9 million of extramural foundation or National Institutes of Health funding directly or indirectly related to the OMS Foundation grants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that 90.2% of projects funded by the OMS Foundation have been completed. Most projects resulted in abstracts and publications in peer-reviewed journals. These grants encouraged students to pursue OMS careers and aided OMS faculty in developing their research programs.

Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: An exploratory study of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to give insight into the article review process by investigating the characteristics and the fate of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO). METHODS: The following information was obtained for original articles submitted to the AJO-DO in 2008: (1) for rejected articles: the reasons for rejection and the journal of subsequent publication when applicable; (2) for accepted articles: the number of revisions and the time elapsed to publication; and (3) for all articles: study topic, study design, area of origin, and statistically significant findings. Findings were reported using descriptive statistics, the chi-square test for equality of proportions, and multiple regression where appropriate. Post-hoc pair-wise tests were checked against the Bonferroni correction to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Of the 440 original articles submitted to AJO-DO in 2008, 116 (26%) were accepted and published an average of 21 months (SD, 5 months) after acceptance. Rejected articles totaled 324 (74%), with 137 (42%) finding subsequent publication an average of 22 months (SD, 11 months) after rejection by the AJO-DO. The top 3 reasons for rejection by the AJO-DO were (1) poor study design (59% of rejected articles), (2) outdated or unoriginal topic (42%), and (3) inappropriate for the AJO-DO's audience (27%). Manuscripts rejected for poor study design had the least success for subsequent publication, whereas those rejected as inappropriate for the AJO-DO had the highest rate of publication elsewhere. Area of origin was significantly associated with acceptance by the AJO-DO, with articles from United States and Canada most likely to be accepted (P < 0.01). Articles from countries with the lowest publication rate in the AJO-DO had the highest publication rate elsewhere. The presence of statistically significant findings was shown to be significantly associated with acceptance by the AJO-DO (P = 0.013) but not with publication elsewhere (P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Rejection by the AJO-DO does not preclude publication elsewhere, although articles rejected for poor study design were least likely to be eventually published. Many publishable articles are rejected by the AJO-DO as inappropriate for its readership, and these were the most likely to find publication elsewhere. Articles with the highest chance of acceptance by the AJO-DO were those from the United States and Canada and those reporting statistically significant results.

The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials.

High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an integral part of evidence-based medicine. RCTs are the bricks and mortar of high-quality systematic reviews, which are important determinants of health care policy and clinical practice. For published research to be used most effectively, investigators and authors should follow the guidelines for accurate and transparent reporting of RCTs. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and its extensions are among the most widely used reporting guidelines in biomedical research. CONSORT was adopted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics in 2004. Since 2011, this Journal has been actively implementing compliance with the CONSORT reporting guidelines. The objective of this explanatory article is to highlight the relevance and implications of the various CONSORT items to help authors to achieve CONSORT compliance in their research submissions of RCTs to this and other orthodontic journals.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of study results by readers. The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Differences in reporting of abstracts in Cochrane and paper-based reviews were also assessed. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database and the Cochrane database for SRs were searched on November 11, 2012, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses related to interventions in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment of the quality of reporting was performed independently and in duplicate, taking into account items related to the effect direction, numerical estimates of effect size, measures of precision, probability and consistency. RESULTS: We initially screened 433 papers and included 146 (127 paper-based and 19 Cochrane reviews, respectively). The direction of evidence was reported in two-thirds of the abstracts while strength of evidence and measure of precision (i.e., confidence interval) were reported in less than half the selected abstracts. Measures of consistency such as I(2) statistics were reported in only 5% of the selected sample of abstracts. Cochrane abstracts reported the limitations of evidence and precision better than paper-based ones. Two items ("meta-analysis" in title and abstract, respectively), were nevertheless better reported in paper-based abstracts. CONCLUSION: Abstracts of SRs with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry currently have no uniform standard of reporting, which may hinder readers' understanding of study outcomes.

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.

The reporting quality of meta-analysis results of systematic review abstracts in periodontology and implant dentistry is suboptimal.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Faggion CM Jr., Liu J, Huda F, Atieh M. J Periodontal Res 2014; 49(2):137-42. REVIEWER: Argy Polychronopoulou, DDS, MS, ScM, ScD PURPOSE/QUESTION: What is the reporting quality of meta-analysis results of abstracts of systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry journals? SOURCE OF FUNDING: The authors received no funding for this study TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Other evidence STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION GRADE: Not applicable.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM: Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals.

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Factors associated with converting scientific abstracts to published manuscripts.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with the conversion of scientific abstracts to publications in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of abstracts presented by members of the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery between 2000 and 2010. Predictor variables were categorized as abstract- or author-specific. The outcome variable was conversion of an abstract presented at a meeting to a published manuscript. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed. P < 0.05 was significant. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 122 abstracts presented at meetings. Ninety abstracts (73.8%) were published in a peer-reviewed literature within 5 years of presentation. The mean time between presentation to publication was 21.9 ± 17.3 months (median, 19.0 months; range, 0-99 months). In bivariate analyses, study design, number of prior publications by the presenting author, and number of prior publications by the senior author were associated with time to publication (P < 0.06). In a multiple Cox proportional hazards model, higher levels of evidence (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.3; P = 0.006) and volume of prior publications by the senior author (hazard ratio, 1.007; 95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.011; P < 0.001) were associated with shorter publication times. CONCLUSIONS: Time to publication of scientific abstracts is associated with study quality, prior research experience by the presenting author, and senior author identity and experience.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals.

OBJECTIVES: A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS: Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS: The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Subsequent publication of oral and maxillofacial surgery meeting abstracts.

PURPOSE: Previous studies in various medical specialties have shown that fewer than 50% of abstracts presented at meetings are subsequently published. The purpose of the present study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The titles and authors of the abstracts from all oral abstract session presentations and posters by American contributors were collected from the Final Programs of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons annual meetings for 2006 to 2009. A PubMed search for published articles through December 2010 was then performed using the authors' names, abstract titles, and key words. RESULTS: A total of 311 abstract presentations were done at the 4 annual meetings. Of these, only 85 (24%) were subsequently published. No difference was found between abstracts from oral or poster presentations. Most of the articles were published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. CONCLUSION: Because of deficiencies that can occur in abstracts and the need to disseminate the information they contain, it is important to take the appropriate measures to ensure that full articles are subsequently published.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals. METHODS: Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05). RESULTS: Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.