Differences between ADEA annual session poster abstracts and their corresponding full published articles

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences between abstracts of posters presented at the 79th (2002) and 80th (2003) Annual Session & Exhibition of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the published full-length articles resulting from the same studies. The abstracts for poster presentation sessions were downloaded, and basic characteristics of the abstracts and their authors were determined. A PubMed search was then performed to identify the publication of full-length articles based on those abstracts in a peer-reviewed journal. The differences between the abstract and the article were examined and categorized as major and minor differences. Differences identified included authorship, title, materials and methods, results, conclusions, and funding. Data were analyzed with both descriptive and analytic statistics. Overall, 89 percent of the abstracts had at least one variation from its corresponding article, and 65 percent and 76 percent of the abstracts had at least one major and minor variation, respectively, from its corresponding article. The most prevalent major variation was in study results, and the most prevalent minor variation was change in the number of authors. The discussion speculates on some possible reasons for these differences.

Letter to the Editors regarding the article published in volume 30, number 3

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

Paracoccidioidomycosis in patients with Lymphoma and review of published literature

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

Next Generation Catalogs (NGCs) : Meeting User Needs with Metadata and Search Technology

Recommendations • Become a beta partner with vendor • Test load collections before going live • Update cataloging codes to benefit your community • Don’t expect to drastically change cataloging practices

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.

Orbital involvement in Pott's puffy tumor: a systematic review of published cases

Pott's puffy tumor (PPT) is a frontal subperiosteal abscess associated with underlying frontal bone osteomyelitis. It represents a well-known source of sinogenic intracranial infection, but the orbital complications related to this entity are rarely reported. The goal of this study was to characterize the orbital involvement in PPT.

Integrated care in patients with schizophrenia: results of trials published between 2011 and 2013 focusing on effectiveness and efficiency

Purpose of review: Overview on integrated care trials focusing on effectiveness and efficiency published from 2011 to 2013. Recent findings: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 non-RCT studies were published from 2011 to 2013. Studies differed in several methodological aspects such as study population, psychotherapeutic approaches used, outcome parameters, follow-up times, fidelities, and implementation of the integrated care model and the nation-specific healthcare context with different control conditions. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Most studies demonstrated relevant improvements regarding symptoms (P = 0.001) and functioning (P = 0.01), quality of life (P = 0.01), adherence (P <0.05) and patient's satisfaction (P = 0.01), and reduction of caregiver's stress (P < 0.05). Mean total costs were favoring or at least equalizing costs but with positive effects found on subjective health favoring integrated care models. Summary: There is an increasing interest in the effectiveness and efficiency of integrated care models in patients with mental disorders, specifically in those with severe and persistent mental illness. To increase generalizability, future trials should exactly describe rationales and content of integrated care model and control conditions.