ReviewJournal of religion and health2020
"Religious Belief": An Undervalued Ethical Inclusion Criterion for Clinical Trials on Bone Grafting Procedures.
Review in Journal of religion and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Different Materials for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Lateral Approach. A Systematic Review.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Pooled it
- Migrants Living in the United Kingdom and Their Perceptions of Participation in Health Research: A Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Biomaterials for Guided Tissue Regeneration and Guided Bone Regeneration: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Dentistry in a multicultural society: the impact of animal-based products on person-centred care.British dental journal · 2022Article
- Recent Advances in the Treatment of Bone Metastases and Primary Bone Tumors: An Up-to-Date Review.Cancers · 2021Review
- Patients' Perspectives of Grafting Materials in Implant Dentistry: A Qualitative Analysis.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present review was to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bone grafting procedures that included religious belief as an eligibility criterion. Indexed databases were searched up to and including February 2019 using different search strategies. In strategy 1, the following terms were used: (a) belief; (b) bone graft; (c) faith; (d) inclusion; (e) exclusion; (f) eligibility; (g) criteria; (h) randomized clinical trial; (i) religion; and (j) xenograft. In strategy 2, the following terms were used in addition to those used in strategy 1: Xenografts AND oral surgery OR xenografts AND maxillofacial OR xenografts AND dental implants. These searches were filtered using the terms "Randomized clinical trial" and "human studies". The initial search yielded 3932 studies. Filtration of results using the terms "Randomized clinical trial" and "human studies" showed 0 studies. Evaluation of patients' religious beliefs seems to be undervalued in RCTs related to the placement of xenografts. This is an essential and ethical criterion that should be taken into consideration prior to inclusion of participants and signing the informed consent form for RCTs related to the placement of bone grafts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31154591What 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.