ArticleBritish dental journal2016
How do we create, and improve, the evidence base?
Article in British dental journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oral health in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions: a systematic review.Trials · 2017Pooled it
- Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Shaping professional identity in dentistry: a cross-sectional study of value prioritization among undergraduate students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Management of compromised first permanent molars in a cohort of UK paediatric patients referred to hospital-based services.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2022Article
- Cochrane and the COMET initiative: developing the evidence base in oral medicine.British dental journal · 2017Article
- Preventing evidence leaks.British dental journal · 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
Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27338909What 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.