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

Women Recipients of IADR Distinguished Scientist Awards.

The International Association for Dental Research (IADR) Distinguished Scientist Awards are prestigious recognitions of outstanding scientific accomplishments in various areas of dental, oral, and craniofacial research, which correspond to several of the IADR Scientific Groups and Networks. These 17 awards were established over a period of 60 y. The objective of this report is to highlight women recipients of IADR Distinguished Scientist Awards. Additionally, we report the distribution of awards to women scientists over time and compare the number of women nominees, awardees, and gender distribution of the membership. Information about the awards was obtained from the IADR member database and press releases. Information collected included name of the award, year received, and the awardee's name, institution, and position held at the time of the award. For the last 14 y, the time span for which reliable information was available, the gender distribution of the membership of the IADR was also retrieved. Overall, only 13% of the awardees have been women; even in the last 20 y, <20% have been women. In the last 14 y, the number of women awardees paralleled the number of nominees for each award. However, the proportion of women nominees was significantly lower than the female membership each year (P < 0.001). With the exception of 1 y, the percentage of women awardees trailed the women membership of the IADR. In the past 4 y, women represented 12% to 18% of the awardees, whereas they composed 41% to 46% of the IADR's membership. Given the benefits of prestigious recognitions on recruitment and retention of faculty and on attracting new research trainees into a discipline, it is important that policies be implemented to increase the proportion of women nominees for awards to appropriately recognize the efforts of remarkable women scientists.

Commentary: Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Dental Research.

This commentary integrates and expands on the preceding articles in this issue that document and celebrate a century of women's achievements in the International Association for Dental Research (IADR). The increasing participation and leadership of women in dental and craniofacial research and within the IADR were viewed from the perspective of a changing culture of science. The steps that have been taken by the IADR to develop greater inclusiveness are acknowledged, and some of the challenges that remain are discussed in terms of obstacles that are most often social or cultural in origin. Comparisons are made across countries, and the social determinants that lead to differences in women's participation are described. Recommendations are made for developing strategies to change elements of our institutional cultures that have provided advantages to some groups of researchers more than to others. The unconscious biases and a lack of commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion that limit the participation of members of some groups limit the progress and achievements of science in general.

Empowering Women Researchers in the New Century: IADR's Strategic Direction.

Gender inequality in science, medicine, and dentistry remains a central concern for the biomedical research workforce today. Although progress in areas of inclusivity and gender diversity was reported, growth has been slow. Women still face multiple challenges in reaching higher ranks and leadership positions while maintaining holistic success in these fields. Within dental research and academia, we might observe trends toward a more balanced pipeline. However, women continue to face barriers in seeking leadership roles and achieving economic equity and scholarship recognition. In an effort to evaluate the status of women in dental research and academia, the authors examined the role of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), a global research organization, which has improved awareness on gender inequality. The goal of this article is to review five crucial issues of gender inequality in oral health research and academics-workforce pipeline, economic inequality, workplace harassment, gender bias in scholarly productivity, and work-life balance-and to discuss proactive steps that the IADR has taken to promote gender equality. Providing networking and training opportunities through effective mentoring and coaching for women researchers, the IADR has developed a robust pipeline of women leaders while promoting gender equality for women in dental academia through a culture shift. As knowledge gaps remained on the levels of conscious and unconscious bias and sexist culture affecting women advancement in academics, as well as the intersectionality of gender with race, gender identity, ability status, sexual orientation, and cultural backgrounds, the IADR has recognized that further research is warranted.

The online attention to oral cancer research: An Altmetric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, have recently emerged as a web-based metrics measuring the impact of research with an emphasis on the public engagement with the research output. In this study, we aimed to identify and analyze research articles about oral cancer that provoked the most online attention. METHODS: Altmetric Explorer was used to identify articles about oral cancer that generated the highest online attention. Descriptive and correlational statistics were performed, and the top 100 articles were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 7,940 articles were identified. Topics were mostly discussed on Facebook, Twitter, Mendeley, and news outlets. The top 100 articles that generated the highest online attention discussed mainly topics related to treatment outcomes and quality of life. Human papilloma virus (HPV) was the most commonly discussed individual topic in the list of top 100 outputs (n = 20). Most articles originated from the USA (n = 46) and Europe (n = 33; mainly from UK [24 articles]). Articles were published in 47 journals that belong to different specialities; journals with a social media account had significantly higher Altmetric scores for their articles compared to those without an account. CONCLUSION: Topics of general interest to the public such as HPV transmission and vaccination, risk factors, and treatment generated the highest online attention.

Research Productivity of Directors of U.S. Advanced Education in Prosthodontics Programs.

The aims of this study were to measure the research productivity of directors of U.S. advanced education in prosthodontics programs (AEPP) and to identify associations between the directors' publication metrics and professional characteristics. A list of AEPP directors was obtained from the American College of Prosthodontists website in December 2015. Information on gender, academic rank, and highest degree was collected from the institutional website for each individual. Citation databases (Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for each director's h-index and i10-index (both indexes are based on numbers of citations of the author's articles) and total numbers of publications and citations. The search identified 50 AEPP directors. The majority were male and had a primary appointment at a university. Most held the rank of associate professor or professor and held both DDS and MS degrees. The mean h-index and i10-index of all directors were 6.32±6.97 and 6.84±10.77, respectively. Their mean numbers of publications and citations were 24.60±31.21 and 288.40±625.97, respectively. The analysis showed that the program directors affiliated with a university had significantly higher mean values for all indexes than those of non-university-affiliated program directors. Professors had productivity metrics significantly higher than those of other ranks in all measures of research productivity.

[Analyzing the social impact of orthodontic articles published by Chinese authors in international journals during the past five years].

Objective: To evaluate and analyze the social impact of orthodontic articles published by Chinese authors in international journals during the past five years, using an altmetric tool; and to explore the practical value of altmetrics measures in the evaluation of dental research. Methods: PubMed was searched via the Altmetric Explorer platform to identify orthodontic research articles that were published during 2012-2016, with at least one affiliation from China. Commentaries, news reports and editorials were excluded. By reading titles and abstracts, two authors carried out inclusion and exclusion of literature independently to exclude articles that are not related to orthodontics and retracted articles. Data extraction was performed simultaneously. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Linear regressions were used to analyze the association between Altmetric attention score (AAS) and potentially related factors. Results: Among 864 articles identified from PubMed, a total of 206 received an AAS, and 160 articles were included for analyzing. The mean AAS of orthodontic research articles from China was 2.7 (95% confidence interval: 2.0 to 3.4). American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics had the most scored articles (n=24) and the highest total AAS (67.0), while European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest mean AAS (3.8). All the top-3 articles were published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Significant positive associations were found among high impact factors (P<0.05), high level of evidence (P<0.001) and the AAS. Conclusions: Publishing more high-impact articles and high level of evidence articles improved the international social impact of orthodontic research from China. As a valuable supplement to citation counts, Altmetric measures had practical values in dental research area.

Producción científica y percepción de la investigación por estudiantes de odontología / Scientific production and perception of research by students of dentistry

El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo conocer la producción científica y la percepción sobre la investigación que tienen los estudiantes universitarios. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo que incluyó a 144 estudiantes del pregrado de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (Lima, Perú) a quienes se les entregó un cuestionario estructurado con las variables de producción académica/científica y la autopercepción que tienen sobre los conocimientos de metodología de la investigación, redacción de artículos y búsqueda de la información. RESULTADOS: Con un promedio de edad de 21,1±2,3 años, solo 5 (3,5%) estudiantes informaron haber publicado y/o colaborado en al menos un artículo científico. El 77,1% considera importante la producción científica como medio para aumentar el conocimiento científico. El 47,2% considera como regular su conocimiento sobre redacción de artículos científicos y un 55,6% posee la misma autopercepción respecto a la búsqueda de la información académica/científica. CONCLUSIÓN: Se puede concluir que la producción científica de los estudiantes es muy baja, y que la mayoría de ellos percibe como regular sus conocimientos relacionados con metodología de la investigación, redacción científica y búsqueda de la información

The aim of this study is to determine the scientific production and perception of research in university students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective study was designed and included 144 undergraduate students of the Faculty of Dentistry, National University of San Marcos (Lima. Peru). A structured questionnaire was administered, with items such as academic/scientific production and the self-perception they have on knowledge of research methodology, article writing, and information searches. RESULTS: The mean age of the students was 21.1±2.3 years, with only 5 (3.47%) students reported having published and/or contributed to at least one scientific article. More than three-quarters (77.1%) considered scientific production important as a means to increase scientific knowledge. Less than half (47.2%) considered that they had average knowledge about writing scientific articles, and 55.6% had the same perception about academic/scientific search information. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the scientific production of students is very low, and most of them perceived they have average knowledge of research methodology, scientific writing, and information search skills

Looking Beyond Traditional Metrics in Orthodontics: An Altmetric Study on the Most Discussed Articles on the Web.

Objective: To evaluate the online visibility of the most popular orthodontic articles in Web platforms in relation to publication details and citations. Materials and Methods: Altmetric Explorer (Altmetric LLP, London, UK) was searched for articles published in 11 orthodontic journals without time limits in publication and citation on social media. The 200 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were collected and screened for data related to publication (date, journal, access), authorship (number of authors, affiliation and origin of the corresponding author), and research (type, subject, funding). Citation counts were harvested from Scopus. Results: The top 200 articles presented a median AAS of 8.0 (range: 5.0-196.0), and were mostly bookmarked in Mendeley (median: 16.6 references; range: 0-199.0). American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics and The Angle Orthodontist contributed 86 per cent of the total number of research outputs. Studies investigating socio-demographics had significantly higher AAS compared to diagnostic studies (median AAS: 19.0; range: 7.0-34.0; versus median AAS: 6.0; range: 5.0-10.0. No other study parameter was found to be statistically significant. AAS did not correlate to the number of citations as reported in Scopus. Limitations: The early stage of altmetrics and their complementary role in assessing together with the citation-based metrics the research impact need to be acknowledged in the interpretation of the results. Conclusions: Visibility of orthodontic articles on the Web is not significantly correlated with citations. Studies on socio-demographics had significantly higher number of online mentions. More constructive online presence of orthodontic journals is needed to reinforce dissemination of research data among scholars and non-scholars.

Productividad científica de revistas odontológicas peruanas. Evaluación de los últimos 10 años / Scientific productivity of Peruvian dental journals. Evaluation of the past 10 years

La productividad de una revista evalúa la cantidad de artículos publicados por institución, autoría, nacionalidad, etc. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar el desarrollo de la producción científica peruana en el área odontológica de 3 revistas (Odontología sanmarquina, Kiru y Estomatológica herediana) en el periodo comprendido entre el 2005 y el 2014. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio bibliométrico que evaluó los artículos según el Open Journal System de cada revista en un periodo de 10 años de publicación. Se analizaron las variables de productividad por año, calidad de los artículos y principal temática de publicación. RESULTADOS: De un total de 662 artículos, el 41,5% provinieron de la revista Estomatológica herediana, el 28,2% de Kiru y el 30,2% de Odontología sanmarquina (p < 0,05). El 61% correspondieron a estudios observacionales, el 19% a revisiones, el 14,7% a estudios experimentales y un 5,3% fueron ensayos clínicos. El 39,42% de publicaciones correspondieron a las relacionadas con las ciencias básicas, siendo las de mayor prevalencia. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayor productividad fue realizada por la revista Estomatológica herediana; la calidad de las publicaciones correspondió principalmente a estudios observacionales, siendo la mayoría de los artículos relativos a las ciencias básicas

The productivity of a journal assesses the number of articles published by, institution, authorship, nationality, etc. This study aimed to analyse the development of the Peruvian scientific production in the dental area of three journals (Odontología sanmarquina, Kiru y Estomatológica herediana) in the period between 2005 and 2014. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric study was designed to assess the articles according the Open Journal System of each journal over a period of 10 years of publication. The variables of productivity per year, quality, and main publishing topic were analysed. RESULTS: Out of a total of 662 articles assessed, 41.5% came from the journal Estomatológica herediana, 28.2% from Kiru, and 30.2% from Odontología sanmarquina (P<.05). There were 61% observational studies, 19% reviews, 14.7% experimental studies, and 5.3% were clinical trials. The most prevalent (39.42%) were articles related to basic science. CONCLUSION: Higher productivity was observed by the journal Estomatológica herediana. The quality of publications corresponded mainly to observational studies, and the majority of articles were related to basic science

Measuring the social impact of dental research: An insight into the most influential articles on the Web.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the most discussed dental articles on the Web and to assess the association between the intensity of online attention, publication characteristics, and citations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for articles published in the 91 dental journals included in 2015 InCites™ Journal Citation Report® and mentioned online at all times. The 100 articles with the highest online attention, as measured by the "Altmetric Attention Score" (AAS), were screened for journal title, quartile of impact factor distribution (Q1-Q4), publication date, origin and affiliation of first author, article topic, type, and access. Citation counts were harvested from Scopus. RESULTS: The top 100 articles presented a median AAS of 119 and were mostly discussed on news outlets, Twitter, and Mendeley. Forty-one articles were published in Q1 journals, 24 in Q2 journals, 32 in Q3 journals, and three in Q4 journals. AAS was significantly higher in articles of Q2 journals (median AAS = 398, range = 70-513) than in articles of Q1. A weak reverse correlation existed between AAS and time since publication (r = -.25, p < .05). No correlation was detected between AAS and other publication characteristics or number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: Increased social impact of dental articles is not significantly associated with high citation rates.

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.

Do Standard Bibliometric Measures Correlate with Academic Rank of Full-Time Pediatric Dentistry Faculty Members?

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between quantitative measures of research productivity and academic rank for full-time pediatric dentistry faculty members in accredited U.S. and Canadian residency programs. For each pediatric dentist in the study group, academic rank and bibliometric factors derived from publicly available databases were recorded. Academic ranks were lecturer/instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Bibliometric factors were mean total number of publications, mean total number of citations, maximum number of citations for a single work, and h-index (a measure of the impact of publications, determined by total number of publications h that had at least h citations each). The study sample was comprised of 267 pediatric dentists: 4% were lecturers/instructors, 44% were assistant professors, 30% were associate professors, and 22% were professors. The mean number of publications for the sample was 15.4±27.8. The mean number of citations was 218.4±482.0. The mean h-index was 4.9±6.6. The h-index was strongly correlated with academic rank (r=0.60, p=0.001). For this sample, an h-index of ≥3 was identified as a threshold for promotion to associate professor, and an h-index of ≥6 was identified as a threshold for promotion to professor. The h-index was strongly correlated with the academic rank of these pediatric dental faculty members, suggesting that this index may be considered a measure for promotion, along with a faculty member's quality and quantity of research, teaching, service, and clinical activities.