Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results). METHODS: The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables). RESULTS: A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).

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.

Parochialism or self-consciousness? Internationality in medical history journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002. METHODS: We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002). RESULTS: Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical research.