Trends in Funding, Internationalization, and Types of Study for Original Articles Published in Five Implant-Related Journals Between 2005 and 2009

Purpose: The aims of this study were to evaluate the trends in funding, geographic origin, and study types of original articles in the dental implant literature and to investigate the relationships among these factors. Materials and Methods: Articles published in Clinical Oral Implants Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Oral Implantology from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed. Nonoriginal articles were excluded. For each article included, extramural funding source, geographic origin, and study type were recorded. Descriptive and analytic analyses (alpha = .05), including a logistic regression analysis, and chi-square test were used where appropriate. Results: of a total of 2,085 articles published, 1,503 met the inclusion criteria. The most common source of funding was from industry (32.4%). The proportion of studies that reported funding increased significantly over time. Europe represented the highest percentage (55.8%) of published articles. Most of the articles reported on clinical studies (49.9%), followed by animal studies (25.9%). Articles from Asia and South America and animal and in vitro studies were significantly more likely to be funded. Conclusion: Almost half of the original dental implant articles were funded. The trend toward internationalization of authorship was evident. A strong association was observed between funding and geographic origin and between funding and study type. Most studies in North America and Europe were clinical studies and supported by industry, whereas a greater proportion of studies in Asia and South America were in vitro or animal studies funded through government resources. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2012;27:69-76

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

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.

Questão jurídica e social para o Terceiro Setor: associações sem fins lucrativos de atividades profissionais e clubes de serviços - Franca-SP

Pós-graduação em Serviço Social - FCHS