Methodological quality of clinical trials in pediatric dentistry research published in ISI journals, 2008-2012.
Abstract
There are many studies about the methodological quality of articles in pediatric dentistry. However, there is no up-to-date information or the use of measurement guidelines designed and validated for this purpose. The aim of this article is to determine the methodological quantity and quality of clinical trials (CT) in pediatric dentistry published in four Web of Knowledge (ISI-indexed journals) between 2008 and 2012. Clinical trials published in four ISI pediatric dentistry journals were evaluated. Name of the journal, year of publication, country of the corresponding author, type of CT and main subject were registered. A scale of methodological quality (MINCIR) from 11 to 36 points was applied to evaluate each article, establishing 18 points as the cutoff for “good methodological quality”. The quality was calculated by country, subject area and journal. Of 1,151 published articles, 149 (12.5%) clinical trials were selected. Their methodological quality was 15.7±2.7 points. 17% of the CT achieved a score equal to or greater than a methodological quality considered “acceptable”. One in every 6 published clinical trials was of good methodological quality. This would actually make it difficult to adopt the results of these investigations into routine clinical practice or to include them in future systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
References
2. Carrasco A, Petersen R. Odontología Basada en Evidencia. Rev Dent Chile. 2008; 99(2): 32-37.
3. Baskurt O. Time series analysis of publication counts of a university: What are the implications? Scientometrics. 2011; 86(3): 645-656.
4. Abramo G, Ciriaco A, Di Costa F. National research assessment exercises: A comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings. Scientometrics. 2011; 89(3): 929-941.
5. Nainar SM. Profile of Journal of Dentistry for Children and Pediatric Dentistry journal articles by evidence typology: thirty-year time trends (1969-1998) and implications. Pediatr Dent. 2000; 22(6): 475-8.
6. Poletto V, Faraco I. Bibliometric study of articles published in a Brazilian journal of pediatric dentistry. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 24(1): 83-88.
7. Al-Namankany A, Ashley P, Moles DR, Parekh S. Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19(5): 318-324.
8. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Makou M, Eliades T. Reporting of Research Quality Characteristics of Studies Published in 6 Major Clinical Dental Specialty Journals. Evid Based Dent Pract. 2011; 11(2): 75-83.
9. Manterola C, Busquets J, Pascual M, Grande L. What is the methodological quality of articles on therapeutic procedures published in Cirugía Española? Cir Esp. 2006; 79(2): 95-100.
10. Da Silva F, Valdivia B, Da Rosa R, Barbosa P, Da Silva R. Escalas y listas de evaluación de la calidad de estudios científicos. Rev Cubana Inf Cienc Salud 2013; 24(3): 295-312.
11. Moraga J, Burgos M, Manterola DC, Sanhueza, A, Cartes-Velásquez, R, Urrutia, S. Confiabilidad de la escala MINCIR para valorar calidad metodológica de estudios de terapia. Rev Chil Cir. 2013; 65(3): 222-227.
12. Cartes-Velásquez, R, Manterola C, Aravena P, Moraga K. Reliability and validity of MINCIR scale for methodological quality in dental therapy research. Braz Oral Res. 2014; 28(1): 01-05.
13. Aravena P, Cartes-Velásquez R, Manterola DC. Productividad y calidad metodológica de artículos clínicos en cirugía oral y maxilofacial en Chile. Período 2001-2012. Rev Chil Cir. 2013; 65(5): 382-388.
14. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
15. Argimón JM, Jiménez V. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. 3th edn. España: Elsevier; 2004. p. 31-33.
16. Shafiei L, Shahravan A. The Level of Evidence in Two Leading Endodontic Journals. Iran Endod J. 2013; 8(1): 18-21.
17. Thornton K, Damian J, Chia-Chun J, Knoernschild K, Campbell S, Sukotjo C. An Analysis of Prosthodontic Research Productivity: Geographic, Economic, and Collaborative Perspective. J Prosthodont. 2012; 21(1): 73-78.
18. Robert C, Caillieux N, Wilson C, Gaudy JF, Arreto CD. World Orofacial Pain Research Production:A Bibliometric Study (2004-2005). J Orofac Pain. 2008; 22(3): 181-189.
19. Sjögren P, Halling A. Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research. Br Dent J. 2002; 192(2): 100-103.
20. Montenegro R, Needleman I, Moles D, Tonetti M. Quality of RCTs in Periodontology- A Systematic Review. J Dent Res. 2002; 81(12): 866-870.
21. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Jensen K, Beutner U, Clerici T, Schmied BM, Steffen T. Bilateral Superficial Cervical Plexus Block in Combination with General Anesthesia Has a Low Efficacy in Thyroid Surgery: A Metaanalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Thyroid. 2012; 22(1): 44-52.
Keywords
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
