Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting

Aim: This study aimed to assess the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) meeting. Methods: We selected abstracts published in the SBPqO meeting proceedings of 2019 and 2020, mentioning that a systematic review was conducted in the title, objective or methods sections. One researcher performed the screening and the data extraction after a pilot test training. The following data were extracted: affiliation of the primary author, dental specialization, the term "systematic review" mentioned in the title, reporting of the objective, reporting of eligibility criteria, reporting of information sources, reporting of the number of included studies and if a meta-analysis was performed. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed with data summarized as frequencies. Results: We included 235 abstracts. A total of 20 studies were from the Universidade de Uberlândia (8.5%), and the main specialization was Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, with 47 studies (20%). Most of the studies mentioned the term "systematic review" in the title (n=219; 93.2%) and reported the objective (n=231; 98.3%). A great majority of studies did not report the eligibility criteria (n=97; 41.3%) or it was classified as unclear (n=96; 40.8%). The great majority of studies only reported the databases searched (n=103; 43.8%) or databases and date of search (n=74; 31.5%). Most of the studies reported the number of included studies (n=204; 86.8%). Conclusion: Based on this study, the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting are satisfactory. However, there is room for improvement