Publication Bias in Five Dental Implant Journals: An Observation from 2005 to 2009

Purpose: This study evaluated possible publication bias and its related factors in implant-related research over time. Materials and Methods: Articles published in Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, Journal of Oral Implantology, and The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants between 2005 and 2009 were reviewed. Nonoriginal articles were excluded. For each article included, study outcome, extramural funding source, type of study, and geographic origin were recorded. Descriptive and analytic statistics (alpha = .05), including the chi-square test and logistic regression analysis, were performed where appropriate. Results: From a total of 2,085 articles, 1,503 met the inclusion criteria. of the articles analyzed, 1,226 (81.6%), 160 (10.6%), and 117 (7.8%) articles reported positive, negative, and neutral outcomes, respectively. In vitro studies, studies from Asia, and funded animal studies were more likely to report positive outcomes compared to others (P = .02, P < .0001, and P = .009, respectively). Industry-funded studies represented the lowest frequency of positive outcomes versus studies funded by other sources. Conclusions: There were a high number of implant-related studies reporting positive outcomes in the five selected journals. Some selected factors were associated with positive outcome bias. In general, funding was not associated with a positive outcome, except for animal studies. Industry-supported research did not show any association with the publication of positive outcomes. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2011;26:1024-1032

Analysis of Abstracts Presented at the Prosthodontic Research Section of IADR General Sessions 2004-2005: Demographics, Publication Rates, and Factors Contributing to Publication

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to describe the demographics of abstracts presented at the prosthodontics section of IADR General Sessions from 2004 to 2005, evaluate the publication rate of abstracts, and analyze the relationship between variables in abstracts and publication.Materials and Methods: Prosthodontics research section abstracts from the IADR General Session in 2004 and 2005 were evaluated for: number of authors, presentation type, origin, affiliation, topic, study design, statistics, study outcome, and funding. The publication rate was calculated following a PubMed search. The journal of publication, year of publication, and the length of time before publication were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used for the data analysis; the relationships between presentation type, study design, study outcome, statistics, funding, and publication were analyzed using logistic regression (alpha = 0.05).Results: From 346 abstracts, 37.0% were published. For oral presentations, 40.7% were published; 35.8% of poster presentations were published. The mean duration before publicationwas 26.4months. North America had themost abstracts, and Europe had the most publications. Fixed prosthodontic research had the highest number and proportion for publication. A significant association with publication was noted for neutral study outcomes (p = 0.018), studies with funding (p = 0.035), and abstracts from Europe (p = 0.001).Conclusions: The majority of abstracts from the prosthodontics research section of IADR General Sessions from 2004 and 2005 remain unpublished. A significant association for publication was noted with neutral outcomes, funding, and abstracts from Europe.

Factors Influencing Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the ADEA Annual Session & Exhibition

Factors related to the path of abstracts from presentation at a conference to publication as a full article have been analyzed in the medical field, but only a few studies have been performed in dentistry. This study investigated the rate of publication of articles based on abstracts presented at the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Annual Session & Exhibition in 2002 and 2003 and the time lag to publication. This study also aimed to characterize the abstracts and subsequent articles and determine if there were any significant factors related to expansion of an abstract into a full manuscript. A total of 370 abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were examined for this study. Subsequent published articles were located using a standard PubMed search. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used to analyze the data collected (alpha=0.05). Results suggest that there was a low (19 percent) publication rate for articles based on abstracts presented at the meetings studied. The median time between abstract presentation and article publication was ten months. Factors that showed significant correlation to likelihood of article publication were multiple affiliations, presence of analytical statistics, and, to a lesser extent, funding. We suggest that presenters at these meetings should expand their abstracts into full manuscripts and seek to publish them in peer-reviewed journals for the benefit of the profession.

Discrepancies between abstracts presented at international association for dental research annual sessions from 2004 to 2005 and full-text publication

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancies between abstracts presented at the IADR meeting (2004-2005) and their full-text publication. Material and Methods. Abstracts from the Prosthodontic Section of IADR meeting were obtained. The following information was collected: abstract title, number of authors, study design, statistical analysis, outcome, and funding source. PubMed was used to identify the full-text publication of the abstracts. The discrepancies between the abstract and the full-text publication were examined, categorized as major and minor discrepancies, and quantified. The data were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Frequency and percentage of major and minor discrepancies were calculated. Results. A total of 109 (95.6%) articles showed changes from their abstracts. Seventy-four (65.0%) and 105 (92.0%) publications had at least one major and one minor discrepancies, respectively. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent (92.0%) than major discrepancies (65.0%). The most common minor discrepancy was observed in the title (80.7%), and most common major discrepancies were seen in results (48.2%). Conclusion. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent than major discrepancies. The data presented in this study may be useful to establish a more comprehensive structured abstract requirement for future meetings. © 2012 Soni Prasad et al.

Architecture for publication and universal access to smart transducers

This paper proposes a simple and powerful architecture for publication and universal access to smart transducers, through existing and established open standards. Smart transducers are put to work on standards and styles already included in the Web, exploring resources in Cloud Computing and simplifying access to data. © 2012 IEEE.