MOOCs: a systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are a recent addition to the range of online learning options. Since 2008, MOOCs have been run by a variety of public and elite universities, especially in North America. Many academics have taken interest in MOOCs recognising the potential to deliver education around the globe on an unprecedented scale; some of these academics are taking a research-oriented perspective and academic papers describing their research are starting to appear in the traditional media of peer reviewed publications. This paper presents a systematic review of the published MOOC literature (2008-2012): Forty-five peer reviewed papers are identified through journals, database searches, searching the Web, and chaining from known sources to form the base for this review. We believe this is the first effort to systematically review literature relating to MOOCs, a fairly recent but massively popular phenomenon with a global reach. The review categorises the literature into eight different areas of interest, introductory, concept, case studies, educational theory, technology, participant focussed, provider focussed, and other, while also providing quantitative analysis of publications according to publication type, year of publication, and contributors. Future research directions guided by gaps in the literature are explored.

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

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of reports of clinical trials published in six Brazilian dental journals indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)

Introduction: Open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular within the biomedical sciences. SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, is a digital library covering a selected collection of Brazilian scientific journals many of which provide open access to full-text articles. This library includes a number of dental journals some of which may include reports of clinical trials in English, Portuguese and/or Spanish. Thus, SciELO could play an important role as a source of evidence for dental healthcare interventions especially if it yields a sizeable number of high quality reports. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify reports of clinical trials by handsearching of dental journals that are accessible through SciELO, and to assess the overall quality of these reports. Material and methods: Electronic versions of six Brazilian dental Journals indexed in SciELO were handsearched at www.scielo.br in September 2008. Reports of clinical trials were identified and classified as controlled clinical trials (CCTs - prospective, experimental studies comparing 2 or more healthcare interventions in human beings) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs - a random allocation method is clearly reported), according to Cochrane eligibility criteria. Criteria to assess methodological quality included: method of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, handling of withdrawals and losses and whether an intention-to-treat analysis had been carried out. Results: The search retrieved 33 CCTs and 43 RCTs. A majority of the reports provided no description of either the method of randomization (75.3%) or concealment of the allocation sequence (84.2%). Participants and outcome assessors were reported as blinded in only 31.2% of the reports. Withdrawals and losses were only clearly described in 6.5% of the reports and none mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis or any similar procedure. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that a substantial number of reports of trials and systematic reviews are available in the dental journals listed in SciELO, and that these could provide valuable evidence for clinical decision making. However, it is clear that the quality of a number of these reports is of some concern and that improvement in the conduct and reporting of these trials could be achieved if authors adhered to internationally accepted guidelines, e. g. the CONSORT statement.

Paracoccidioidomycosis in patients with Lymphoma and review of published literature

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

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES PUBLISHED IN BRAZIL: IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS STUDIES ABOUT HUMAN HEALTH PREVENTION

Integrative review of Brazilian studies about evidence-based practices (EBP) about prevention in human health, published in Web of Science/JCR journals, between October 2010 and April 2011. The aim was to identify the specialties that most accomplished these studies, their foci and methodological approaches. Based on inclusion criteria, 84 studies were selected, mainly published in public health journals, focusing on primary care and also addressing clinical issues and different specialties. Prevention foci and methodological approaches also varied, with a predominance of systematic reviews without meta-analysis. The results indicate that there is no single way to conceptualize and practice EBP in the field of prevention, and that its application may not only serve to obtain indisputable evidence to equip intervention actions. This endless knowledge area is under construction, with a view to the analysis and further understanding of health phenomena.

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR.

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.

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.

Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis?

In orthodontics, multiple site observations within patients or multiple observations collected at consecutive time points are often encountered. Clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared to individual randomized trials and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this study to assess to what degree clustering effects are considered during design and data analysis in the three major orthodontic journals. The contents of the most recent 24 issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from December 2010 backwards were hand searched. Articles with clustering effects and whether the authors accounted for clustering effects were identified. Additionally, information was collected on: involvement of a statistician, single or multicenter study, number of authors in the publication, geographical area, and statistical significance. From the 1584 articles, after exclusions, 1062 were assessed for clustering effects from which 250 (23.5 per cent) were considered to have clustering effects in the design (kappa = 0.92, 95 per cent CI: 0.67-0.99 for inter rater agreement). From the studies with clustering effects only, 63 (25.20 per cent) had indicated accounting for clustering effects. There was evidence that the studies published in the AO have higher odds of accounting for clustering effects [AO versus AJODO: odds ratio (OR) = 2.17, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.43, P = 0.03; EJO versus AJODO: OR = 1.90, 95 per cent CI: 0.84-4.24, non-significant; and EJO versus AO: OR = 1.15, 95 per cent CI: 0.57-2.33, non-significant). The results of this study indicate that only about a quarter of the studies with clustering effects account for this in statistical data analysis.