ArticleIranian endodontic journal2013
The level of evidence in two leading endodontic journals.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Level of evidence analysis of the Saudi Dental Journal: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Levels of Evidence in Three Clinical Chapters in Five Editions of the Textbook Pathways of the Pulp.Iranian endodontic journal · 2022Review
- Ability of new obturation materials to improve the seal of the root canal system: a review.Acta biomaterialia · 2014Review
- Endodontic epidemiology.Iranian endodontic journal · 2014Review
- The effect of deproteinized bovine bone mineral on saos-2 cell proliferation.Iranian endodontic journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe successful practice of dentistry, including endodontics, relies on a wide spectrum of dental research. The quantity and quality of research evidence in endodontics have seldom been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of evidence in current leading endodontic journals. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll the articles published in 2000, 2006 and 2010 in two major endodontic journals (Journal of Endodontics and International Endodontic Journal) were evaluated. These articles were classified according to the level of evidence (LOE) using Oxford Scale from 0 to 5 and type of the study.
resultsOf the articles assessed, 3.2% were clinical trials, 47.8% were experimental, 5.6% were animal studies and 43.4% were of other types. Subdivisions according to LOE were 4.3% as level 1, 0.9 % level 2, 7.3% level 3, 0.4% level 4 and 3.5% level 5. Overall, 83.6% of the articles were classified as "non-evidence-based". There was a marginally significant increase in the percentage of articles with high level of evidence in recent years.
conclusionThere is a substantial shortage of articles with high level of evidence in clinical endodontics. However, there was a gradual increase in the number of high LOE articles published in both journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23411681PMC3570969What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.