Search

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.

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]