ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2015
An assessment of the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials published in paediatric dentistry journals.
Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- A comparison of calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste and zinc oxide eugenol as root filling materials for pulpectomy in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2019Pooled it
- Reporting Quality of the Abstracts for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Dentistry.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry: A comparative systematic review.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2020Review
- A systematic review of orthopaedic manual therapy randomized clinical trials quality.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe objectives of this study are to compare the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2011 and 2012 within five paediatric dentistry journals. STUDY
designRCTs published in the years 2011 and 2012 were hand-searched by one reviewer. After randomisation and blinding, these journals were independently scored by two blinded reviewers based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.
methodsA total of 59 articles were included for analysis and 70 criteria were scored dichotomously as '1' when reported and '0' when not reported. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA tests were performed.
resultsThe Gwets AC1 Inter rater reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 (95 % C.I 0.84-0.86) indicating excellent correlation between the two reviewers. Only 19 articles (32.2 %) reported more than half (35/70) of the expected criteria. Descriptive statistics showed that sections such as introduction, results and discussion were reported better than abstract, materials and methods and other information. One-way ANOVA tests showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the reporting of criteria across different journals and there was also no significant difference between the articles published in 2011 and 2012 (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe general quality of reporting of RCTs in paediatric dentistry journals was inadequate. Authors, reviewers and journal guidelines must work together towards a common goal for improving the quality of reporting of RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25348112What 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.