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The majority of abstracts from the prosthodontics research section of IADR General Sessions from 2004 and 2005 remain unpublished.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.

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.

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

Major developments in conulariid research: problems of interpretation and future perspectives

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Construction of ethics in clinical research - Clinical trials registration

Scientific development that has been achieved through decades finds in clinical research a great possibility of translating findings to human health application. Evidence given by clinical trials allows everyone to have access to the best health services. However, the millionaire world of pharmaceutical industries has stained clinical research with doubt and improbability. Study results (fruits of controlled clinical trials) and scientific publications (selective, manipulated and with wrong conclusions) led to an inappropriate clinical practice, favoring the involved economic aspect. In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), supported by the World Association of Medical Editors, started demanding as a requisite for publication that all clinical trials be registered at the database ClinicalTrials.gov. In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) created the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), which gathers several registry centers from all over the world, and required that all researchers and pharmaceutical industries register clinical trials. Such obligatory registration has progressed and will extend to all scientific journals indexed in all worldwide databases. Registration of clinical trials means another step of clinical research towards transparency, ethics and impartiality, resulting in real evidence to the forthcoming changes in clinical practice as well as in the health situation.