Reporting of statistical results in prosthodontic and implantology journals: p values or confidence intervals?

PURPOSE Confidence intervals (CIs) are integral to the interpretation of the precision and clinical relevance of research findings. The aim of this study was to ascertain the frequency of reporting of CIs in leading prosthodontic and dental implantology journals and to explore possible factors associated with improved reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were accessed, covering the years 2005 to 2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Dentistry. Articles were screened and the reporting of CIs and P values recorded. Other information including study design, region of authorship, involvement of methodologists, and ethical approval was also obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with reporting of CIs. RESULTS Interrater agreement for the data extraction performed was excellent (kappa = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89). CI reporting was limited, with mean reporting across journals of 14%. CI reporting was associated with journal type, study design, and involvement of a methodologist or statistician. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of CI in implant dentistry and prosthodontic journals requires improvement. Improved reporting will aid appraisal of the clinical relevance of research findings by providing a range of values within which the effect size lies, thus giving the end user the opportunity to interpret the results in relation to clinical practice.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Exploring the publications in three major orthodontic journals: a comparative analysis of two 5-year periods.

OBJECTIVE To analyze the types of articles and authorship characteristics of three orthodontic journals--American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO)--published between 2008 and 2012 and to assess the differences in content within this period and an earlier period of 1998 to 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS Each journal's content was accessed through the web edition. From each article, the following parameters were recorded: article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, source of article (referring to the first author's affiliation), and geographic origin. Descriptive statistics were performed and selected parameters were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test for independence at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS Review of differences between the two periods showed that the number of publications was almost double. The percentages of multi-authored articles increased. Fewer studies derived from the United States/Canada and European Union countries. Increases for articles from non-European Union countries, Asia, and other countries were found. Characteristics of the second period showed that the EJO and AO published more research articles, whereas the AJODO regularly published case reports and other articles. Approximately 75% of all studies derived from orthodontic departments. CONCLUSIONS The publications from 1998-2002 and 2008-2012 were significantly different both in terms of numbers and characteristics. Within 2008-2012 there were notable differences between the three journals concerning the type and origin of the publications.

The Hundred Most-Cited Publications in Orthopaedic Knee Research

BACKGROUND: Despite its limitations, citation analysis remains one of the best currently available tools for quantifying the impact of articles. Bibliometric studies list the "best-sellers" in a single location, and they have been published frequently in many fields during recent years. The purpose of the present study was to report the qualities and characteristics of citation classics in orthopaedic knee research. METHODS: The database of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) was utilized for identification of articles published from 1945 to March 2014. All knee articles that had been published in sixty-five orthopaedic and twenty-nine rheumatology journals and that had been cited at least 200 times were identified. The top 100 were selected for further analysis of authorship, source journal, number of citations, citation rate (both since publication and in 2013), geographic origin, article type, and level of evidence. RESULTS: The publication dates of the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 1948 to 2007, with the greatest number of articles published in the 1980s. Citations per article ranged from 2640 to 287. All articles were published in eleven of the ninety-four journals. The leading countries of origin were the U.S. followed by the U.K. and Sweden. The two main focus areas were sports traumatology and degenerative disease. The number of citations per article was also greatest for articles published in the 1980s. Basic research articles were cited more quickly, but not more often, than clinical articles. Most articles represented Level-IV evidence, followed by Levels II, III, and I. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric study is likely to include a list of intellectual milestones in orthopaedic knee research. It is apparent that a high level of evidence is not mandatory for an article to gain a large number of citations. Bibliometric reports provide a reflection of the quality of cited research published in a specific field and should therefore provoke thinking within the scientific community.

The 100 Most Influential Publications in Cervical Spine Research

STUDY DESIGN Bibliometric study of current literature. OBJECTIVE To identify and analyze the 100 most cited publications in cervical spine research. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The cervical spine is a dynamic field of research with many advances made within the last century. However, the literature has never been comprehensively analyzed to identify and compare the most influential articles as measured by the number of citations. METHODS All databases of the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge were utilized in a two-step approach. First, the 150 most cited cervical spine studies up to and including 2014 were identified using four keywords. Second, all keywords related to the cervical spine found in the 150 studies (n = 38) were used to conduct a second search of the database. The top 100 most cited articles were hereby selected for further analysis of current and past citations, authorship, geographic origin, article type, and level of evidence. RESULTS Total citations for the 100 studies identified ranged from 173 to 879. They were published in the time frame 1952 to 2008 in a total of 30 different journals. Most studies (n = 42) were published in the decade 1991 - 2000. Level of evidence ranged from 1 to 5 with 39 studies in the level 4 category. 13 researchers were first author more than once and 9 researchers senior author more than once. The two step approach with a secondary widening of search terms yielded an additional 27 studies, including the first ranking article. CONCLUSIONS This bibliometric study is likely to include some of the most important milestones in the field of cervical spine research of the last 100 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.