Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

What do case-control studies estimate? Survey of methods and assumptions in published case-control research

To evaluate strategies used to select cases and controls and how reported odds ratios are interpreted, the authors examined 150 case-control studies published in leading general medicine, epidemiology, and clinical specialist journals from 2001 to 2007. Most of the studies (125/150; 83%) were based on incident cases; among these, the source population was mostly dynamic (102/125; 82%). A minority (23/125; 18%) sampled from a fixed cohort. Among studies with incident cases, 105 (84%) could interpret the odds ratio as a rate ratio. Fifty-seven (46% of 125) required the source population to be stable for such interpretation, while the remaining 48 (38% of 125) did not need any assumptions because of matching on time or concurrent sampling. Another 17 (14% of 125) studies with incident cases could interpret the odds ratio as a risk ratio, with 16 of them requiring the rare disease assumption for this interpretation. The rare disease assumption was discussed in 4 studies but was not relevant to any of them. No investigators mentioned the need for a stable population. The authors conclude that in current case-control research, a stable exposure distribution is much more frequently needed to interpret odds ratios than the rare disease assumption. At present, investigators conducting case-control studies rarely discuss what their odds ratios estimate.

The role of psychological stress in inflammatory bowel disease: quality assessment of methods of 18 prospective studies and suggestions for future research

BACKGROUND: Enquiries among patients on the one hand and experimental and observational studies on the other suggest an influence of stress on inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). However, since this influence remains hypothetical, further research is essential. We aimed to devise recommendations for future investigations in IBD by means of scrutinizing previously applied methodology. METHODS: We critically reviewed prospective clinical studies on the effect of psychological stress on IBD. Eligible studies were searched by means of the PubMed electronic library and through checking the bibliographies of located sources. RESULTS: We identified 20 publications resulting from 18 different studies. Sample sizes ranged between 10 and 155 participants. Study designs in terms of patient assessment, control variables, and applied psychometric instruments varied substantially across studies. Methodological strengths and weaknesses were irregularly dispersed. Thirteen studies reported significant relationships between stress and adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Study designs, including accuracy of outcome assessment and repeated sampling of outcomes (i.e. symptoms, clinical, and endoscopic), depended upon conditions like sample size, participants' compliance, and available resources. Meeting additional criteria of sound methodology, like taking into account covariates of the disease and its course, is strongly recommended to possibly improve study designs in future IBD research.