Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

Experiences of dental behaviour support techniques: A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients' or carers' reported experiences of dental care provided using dental behaviour support (DBS) techniques. Qualitative literature can provide unique insight into these experiences. AIM: To explore and synthesize qualitative literature related to patient experience of dental behaviour support. METHODS: A PROSPERO-registered systematic review of qualitative articles was undertaken. Studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. Abstracts were screened by two reviewers and data were extracted to summarize the qualitative findings included within them. A thematic summary approach was used to synthesize the qualitative data identified. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. Studies primarily explored experiences of dental care of children by speaking to their parents (n = 16), particularly regarding paediatric dental general anaesthesia (DGA) (n = 8). Studies of adults' experiences of DBS (n = 7) covered a range of techniques. Nine studies explored broader dental care experiences and did not study specific DBS approaches. A thematic synthesis identified five themes applicable across the studies identified: Trust and the therapeutic alliance supporting effective care delivery; considered information sharing often alleviated anticipatory anxiety; control and autonomy-reduced anxieties; variations in the perceived treatment successes and failures of DBS techniques; and DBS techniques produced longer positive and negative impacts on patients beyond direct care provision. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research has been under-utilized in research on DBS techniques. Care experiences of most DBS techniques outside of paediatric DGA are poorly understood. Building trust with patients and enabling autonomy appear to support positive patient-reported experiences of care.

A scoping review of interventions and outcome measures in trials of dental behavior support.

BACKGROUND: Dental behavior support (DBS) describes all techniques used by dental professionals to ensure that dental care is safe, effective, and acceptable. There is a need to standardize outcome measures across DBS techniques to reduce heterogeneity, limit selective reporting, promote consistency, and optimize outcomes across DBS research. A comprehensive review of existing measures is a prerequisite to understanding potential outcomes related to the area of interest. AIM: This review had three aims: first, to identify the outcome measures (OMs) reported in trials of dental behavior support; second, to categorize the component DBS techniques reported within interventions according to emerging agreed terminology; and, third, to map outcome measures to intervention type. METHODS: A scoping review of trials evaluating DBS techniques was undertaken from 2012 to 2022. The review was prospectively registered. Studies were identified through Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO. Study abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted by single selector. Outcome measures were sorted according to measurement domains (physiological, behavioral, psychological, and treatment). Responses were assimilated and summed to produce a refined list of distinguishable outcome measures. Intervention types were categorized according to accepted descriptors. Frequencies were presented; associations between outcome domain and DBS type were also reported (Chi-square test of independence). RESULTS: A total of 344 trials were included in the review from an initial 14,793 titles / title and abstracts screened. Most involved children (n = 215), most were from India (n = 104), involving basic dental care (n = 117). The median number of outcome measures per trial was four (range = 1-12); 1,317 individual outcomes were reported, categorized as: psychological (n = 501, 38.0%); physiological (n = 491, 37.3%), behavioral (n = 123, 9.3%) or, treatment-related (n = 202, 15.3%). DBS interventions were split between 239 (45.7%) pharmacological and 283 (54.1%) non-pharmacological; 96.6% of interventions mapped to accepted descriptors. A significant relationship was noted between the type of intervention and the outcome domain reported. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate massive variation in outcome measures of DBS interventions that likely lead to unnecessary heterogeneity, selective reporting, and questionable relevance in the literature. A large range of DBS interventions were mapped according to BeSiDe list. There is a need for consensus on a core outcome set across the spectrum of DBS techniques.

Labels and descriptions of dental behaviour support techniques: A scoping review of clinical practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: There is no agreed taxonomy of the techniques used to support patients to receive professional oral healthcare. This lack of specification leads to imprecision in describing, understanding, teaching and implementing behaviour support techniques in dentistry (DBS). METHODS: This review aims to identify the labels and associated descriptors used by practitioners to describe DBS techniques, as a first step in developing a shared terminology for DBS techniques. Following registration of a protocol, a scoping review limited to Clinical Practice Guidelines only was undertaken to identify the labels and descriptors used to refer to DBS techniques. RESULTS: From 5317 screened records, 30 were included, generating a list of 51 distinct DBS techniques. General anaesthesia was the most commonly reported DBS (n = 21). This review also explores what term is given to DBS techniques as a group (Behaviour management was most commonly used (n = 8)) and how these techniques were categorized (mainly distinguishing between pharmacological and non-pharmacological). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to generate a list of techniques that can be selected for patients and marks an initial step in future efforts at agreeing and categorizing these techniques into an accepted taxonomy, with all the benefits this brings to research, education, practice and patients.

Nonpharmacological techniques to support patients with intellectual developmental disorders to receive dental treatment: A systematic review of behavior change techniques.

AIMS: To identify the nonpharmacological patient-support techniques (nPSTs) reported, used or recommended for people with intellectual-developmental-disorders (IDD) to receive dental treatment; to identify their active ingredients and evaluate their effectiveness by adopting an existing taxonomy of behavior-change techniques (BCTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Following a protocol, a search strategy was undertaken using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cinahl, and Psychinfo (EBSCO). Selection criteria were applied, with review and extraction in duplicate. A comprehensive list of nPSTs were identified and coded by their constituent behavior-change techniques (BCTs), where BCT-taxonomy-Version-1 criteria were satisfied. Quality assessment was undertaken and effectiveness of BCTs reported. From 915 screened articles, 23 were included. In 207 instances nPSTs were identified, representing 46 distinct nPST techniques, such as positive-reinforcement (n = 18) and tell-show-do (n = 9). Of the 207 nPST codes, 135 were coded as BCTs (65.2%). The most commonly coded BCT was demonstration of the behavior (BCT6.1; n = 25). Considering studies of interventions (n = 11), all were at moderate to critical risk of bias. No interventions or outcome measures were comparable across studies. CONCLUSION: This is the first review to bring together techniques dentists use in practice and theory-driven BCTs. A significant overlap between nPSTs and BCTs was evident supporting the use of BCT taxonomy to code dental interventions. No strong evidence supporting any intervention was identified.