Search

This article explores the topic of rejected manuscripts in biomedical disciplines. It highlights that manuscripts can be rejected for various reasons and emphasizes the importance of managing rejection as a normal part of the publication process. The study examines the characteristics and rejection rates of studies on the fate of rejected manuscripts in biomedical disciplines. The findings reveal that the USA is the most prevalent affiliation of the first author and radiology is the most researched discipline. The study suggests that there is room for improvement in the reporting and methodology of these studies. [Extracted from the article]

Background/Aims: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta‐analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality. Materials and Methods: SRs with meta‐analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p‐value was 5%. Results: Forty‐one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores. Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta‐analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta‐analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta‐analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis. Methodology: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item—'Yes'—when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'—when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'—when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers. Results: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'. Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high‐quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer‐reviewers when assessing submissions to journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the need to use systematic reviews to compare the data between several different laboratory-based studies to identify any outlying and presumably inaccurate results within the speciality of endodontology. Topics include methodological approaches to assess scientific studies, major challenge in developing new critieria to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in clinical studies, and how the most realistic assessment of laboratory studies in endodontology might be best achieved.

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta‐research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta‐research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta‐research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta‐research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta‐research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta‐research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search strategies with in systematic reviews published in the field of stereotactic radio surgery (SRS). Methods: Three electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE® and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify systematic reviews addressing SRS interventions, with the last search performed in October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of included systematic reviews were conducted. The search strategies of the included systematic reviews were assessed using a standardized nine-question form based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Assessment of Multiple System atic Reviews checklist. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the im portant predictors of search quality. Results: A total of 85 systematic reviews were included. The median quality score of search strategies was 2 (interquartile range = 2), Whilst 89% of systematic reviews reported the use of search terms, only 14% of systematic reviews reported searching the grey literature. Multiple linear regression analyses identified publication year (continuous variable), metaanalysis performance and journal impact factor (continuous variable) as predictors of higher mean quality scores. Conclusion: This study identified the urgent need to improve the quality of search strategies with insy stematic reviews published in the field of SRS. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to address how authors performed searches to select clinical studies for inclusion in their systematic reviews. Comprehensive and well-implemented search strategies are pivotal to reduce the chance of publication bias and consequently generate more reliable systematic review findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal experiments are critical for the development of new human therapeutics because they provide mechanistic information, as well as important information on efficacy and safety. Some evidence suggests that authors of animal research in dentistry do not observe important methodological issues when planning animal experiments, for example sample-size calculation. Low-quality animal research directly interferes with development of the research process in which multiple levels of research are interconnected. For example, high-quality animal experiments generate sound information for the further planning and development of randomized controlled trials in humans. These randomized controlled trials are the main source for the development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which will generate the best evidence for the development of clinical guidelines. Therefore, adequate planning of animal research is a sine qua non condition for increasing efficacy and efficiency in research. Ethical concerns arise when animal research is not performed with high standards. This Focus article presents the latest information on the standards of animal research in dentistry, more precisely in the field of implant dentistry. Issues on precision and risk of bias are discussed, and strategies to reduce risk of bias in animal research are reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim It remains unclear which type of non-surgical treatment is most appropriate as first-line intervention against peri-implantitis. This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effect of various non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies. Methods The PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, DARE and Web of Knowledge databases were searched in duplicate for randomized controlled trials ( RCTs) up to and including 01 January 2014. Additional relevant literature was identified using handsearching of reference lists within published systematic reviews, and screenings of OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov and Controlled-Trials.com. Probing pocket depth ( PPD) was the outcome measure assessed. Multilevel mixed modelling was used to perform the network meta-analysis, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to obtain random effects. Results Eleven studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Debridement in conjunction with antibiotics achieved the greatest additional PPD reduction in comparison to debridement only (0.490 mm; 95% credible interval: −0.647;1.252). The highest probabilities of being the most effective interventions were achieved by Vector system ( p = 20.60%), debridement plus periochip ( p = 20.00%) and photodynamic therapy ( p = 18.90%). Conclusion The differences between various non-surgical treatments were relatively small with large credible intervals. On the basis of currently available RCTs, there is insufficient evidence to support that any particular non-surgical treatment for peri-implantitis showed better performance than debridement alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the methodological approaches used to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews ( SRs) in periodontology and implant dentistry. Materials & Methods Two electronic databases ( Pub Med and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched independently to identify SRs examining interventions published through 2 September 2013. The reference lists of included SRs and records of 10 specialty dental journals were searched manually. Methodological approaches were assessed using seven criteria based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Temporal trends in methodological quality were also explored. Results Of the 159 SRs with meta-analyses included in the analysis, 44 (28%) reported the use of domain-based tools, 15 (9%) reported the use of checklists and 7 (4%) reported the use of scales. Forty-two (26%) SRs reported use of more than one tool. Criteria were met heterogeneously; authors of 15 (9%) publications incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into SRs, whereas 69% of SRs reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. Reporting of four criteria was significantly better in recent (2010-2013) than in previous publications. Conclusion The analysis identified several methodological limitations of approaches used to assess evidence in studies included in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims Reporting of adverse events is of paramount importance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide the implementation of new therapeutic approaches in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of adverse events reporting in RCTs published in the periodontal literature. Materials and Methods Two authors (CMF and NNG) searched the PubMed and LILACS electronic databases independently and in duplicate to identify RCTs published in periodontology from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012. Reporting quality in RCTs was assessed with reference to the 2004 CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Differences in adverse events reporting between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs were also determined. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to determine the extent of inter-reviewer agreement. Fischer's exact test was used to assess differences in reporting between the two samples. Results The analysis included 246 publications. One hundred twenty-four of 990 (13%) items and 223 of 1460 (15%) items were adequately reported in publications from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012 respectively. Three checklist topics were significantly better reported in the 2011-2012 sample; two recommendations were better reported in non-industry-funded trials in publications from both periods. Conclusion Improvement and standardization of adverse events reporting in periodontology are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To perform an overview of literature search strategies in systematic reviews ( SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry. Materials and Methods Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of SRs) were searched, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses on interventions, with the last search performed on 11 November 2012. Manual searches of the reference lists of included SRs and 10 specialty dental journals were conducted. Methodological issues of the search strategies of included SRs were assessed with Cochrane collaboration guidelines and AMSTAR recommendations. The search strategies employed in Cochrane and paper-based SRs were compared. Results A total of 146 SRs with meta-analyses were included, including 19 Cochrane and 127 paper-based SRs. Some issues, such as 'the use of keywords,' were reported in most of the SRs (86%). Other issues, such as 'search of grey literature' and 'language restriction,' were not fully reported (34% and 50% respectively). The quality of search strategy reporting in Cochrane SRs was better than that of paper-based SRs for seven of the eight criteria assessed. Conclusion There is room for improving the quality of reporting of search strategies in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry, particularly in SRs published in paper-based journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the policy of the journal "International Endodontic Journal" concerning the reporting of conflicts of interest, issues with funding, and declaration of acknowledgments within manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the journal. It comments on mitigating measures authors can use to reduce any possible negative effects from potential conflicts of interest and discusses the addition of separate 'Acknowledgements' sections in manuscripts.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize retracted studies within the field of radiation oncology.Methods and Materials: Computerized searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2017 looking for retracted studies using the terms "retraction note," "retracted note," "withdrawn" and "radiotherapy," and "radiation oncology." Additional studies were identified by hand-searching 10 discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers and then extracted author demographics, journal characteristics, and retraction-specific variables.Results: Of the 58 studies identified, the most common reasons for retraction were misconduct (43%), methodological error (21%), authorship issues (5%), unknown causes (5%), and journal (administrative) errors (3%). A total of 13 systematic reviews or protocols (22%) were withdrawn from the Cochrane Library for being out-of-date or redundant. All but one retracted study and retraction notice were available in portable document format. Of the 57 retrieved papers, 79% were identified as retracted via in-text notations or watermarks. Overall median time to retraction was 44 months (interquartile range, 11-98 months). However, 42 studies (72%) were still cited after retraction notices were published.Conclusions: A retracted study within the field of radiation oncology remains a relatively uncommon event. Although promising, our data suggest that the majority of these retracted articles continue to be cited as valid research. As such, there is still a need for clinicians to remain vigilant with their academic rigor and good clinical research practices. There is an urgent need for publication houses to foster universal publishing standards along with discipline-specific retraction guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plaque-induced periodontal diseases occur in response to the accumulation of dental plaque. Disease manifestation and progression is determined by the nature of the immune response to the bacterial complexes in plaque. In general, predisposing factors for these periodontal diseases can be defined as those factors which retain or hinder the removal of plaque and, depending upon the nature of the immune response to this plaque, the disease will either remain stable and not progress or it may progress and result in chronic periodontitis. In contrast, modifying factors can be defined as those factors that alter the nature or course of the inflammatory lesion. These factors do not cause the disease but rather modify the chronic inflammatory response, which, in turn, is determined by the nature of the innate and adaptive immune responses and the local cytokine and inflammatory mediator networks. Chronic inflammation is characterized by vascular, cellular and repair responses within the tissues. This paper will focus on how common modifying factors, such as smoking, stress, hormonal changes, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and HIV/AIDS, influence each of these responses, together with treatment implications. As treatment planning in periodontics requires an understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of the disease, it is important for all modifying factors to be taken into account. For some of these, such as smoking, stress and diabetic control, supportive health behavior advice within the dental setting should be an integral component for overall patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High‐quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well‐structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non‐repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory‐based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three‐stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine‐point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face‐to‐face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face‐to‐face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end‐users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Materials and Methods A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth ( PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation. Results In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow®, debridement combined with PerioChip®, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er: YAG laser monotherapy, Vector™ System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment. Conclusions Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Listl S, Moran V, Maurer J, Faggion CM Jr. Dental service utilization by Europeans aged 50 plus. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012; 40: 164-174. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract Objectives: To describe variations in the utilization of dental services by persons aged 50+ from 14 European countries and to identify the extent to which such variations are attributable to differences in oral health need and in accessibility of dental care. Methods: We use data from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE Waves 2 and 3) and estimate a series of multivariate logistic regression models to analyze variations in dental service utilization (overall dental attendance, preventive treatment and/or operative treatment, dental attendance in early life years) Results: Overall dental attendance and incidence of solely preventive treatment are comparatively high in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland. In contrast, overall dental attendance is relatively low in Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Poland, and Ireland. Moreover, a high incidence of solely operative treatment is observed in Austria, Italy, and France, whereas in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and Ireland, the incidence of solely operative treatment is comparably low. By and large, these variations persist even when controlling for cross-country differences in oral health need and in accessibility of dental care. Conclusions: In comparison with other European regions, there is a tendency toward more frequent and preventive dental treatment of the elderly populations residing in Scandinavia and Western Europe. Such utilization patterns appear only partially attributable to differences in need for and accessibility of dental care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]