Search

Objective. To investigate development of the use of statistical methods in dental journals in 1996, 2001, and 2006 hypothesizing that methods are becoming more sophisticated. Material and methods. All original research articles in four dental journals in 1996, 2001, and 2006 were reviewed: Journal of Dental Research (JDR), Caries Research (CR), Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (CDOE) and Acta Odontologica Scandinavica (AOS). Evaluation covered 928 articles reporting original research findings based on systematic collection and statistical analysis of research data. Aspects measured were: research design, statistical methodology, description of procedures, and presentation of results. Percentage frequencies of reported statistical procedures were compared between journals and between years. Results. The main findings of the study are: 1) that use of multivariate or specific methods did not increase from 1996 to 2006, 2) that traditional statistical significance testing is still widely used in dental journals and that use of confidence intervals increased in the period 1996 to 2006, 3) that statistical procedures are usually extensively described, and 4) that dental journals have different profiles in their statistical content. Conclusions. The authors of articles in dental journals might apply these results when designing their dental research, i.e. to use statistical methods and to present results in line with the policy and presentation of the leading dental journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in 'predatory dental journals' and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in 'predatory open access (OA) journals' and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Statistical methods play an important role in medical and dental research. In earlier studies it has been observed that current use of methods and reporting of statistics are responsible for some of the errors in the interpretation of results. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of statistical reporting in dental research articles. Methods. A total of 200 articles published in 2010 were analysed covering five dental journals: Journal of Dental Research, Caries Research, Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Journal of Dentistry and Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. Each paper underwent careful scrutiny for the use of statistical methods and reporting. A paper with at least one poor reporting item has been classified as 'problems with reporting statistics' and a paper without any poor reporting item as 'acceptable'. Results. The investigation showed that 18 (9%) papers were acceptable and 182 (91%) papers contained at least one poor reporting item. Conclusions. The proportion of at least one poor reporting item in this survey was high (91%). The authors of dental journals should be encouraged to improve the statistical section of their research articles and to present the results in such a way that it is in line with the policy and presentation of the leading dental journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vähänikkilä H, Miettunen J, Tjäderhane L, Larmas M, Nieminen P. The use of time-to-event methods in dental research: a comparison based on five dental journals over a 11-year period. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012; 40 (Suppl. 1): 36-42. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S Abstract - Objectives: Time-to-event methods are used in multivariate data analysis to describe the relationship between patient variables and the timing of an outcome event. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reporting of statistical techniques and results in dental research papers with special reference to time-to-event (TTE) methods and to create guidelines for the appropriate reporting of these methods. Methods: All the original research reports published in five dental journals in 1996, 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were reviewed. The evaluation covered 1985 articles that were based on the systematic collection and statistical analysis of research data. Differences between TTE approaches and others were assessed in terms of the justification for the number of cases, description of procedures, statistical references, software used, and statistical figures and tables provided. Results: Fifty-six papers (2.8% of the total) used time-to-event methods, the frequency of which increased slightly from 1996 to 2007 ( P = 0.061). Statistical procedures were described more extensively in the papers, which used TTE methods. Reporting of the statistical methodology in papers using other methods was in general inadequate. Conclusions: TTE methods are underused in dental research. Authors could well take heed of these results when designing their research, so as to make more use of such methods and to present the results in a manner that is in line with the policy and presentation of the leading dental journals. Authors could also improve their statistical reporting with the help of the guidelines presented here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]