SynthesisCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2021
A scoping review of Table 2 fallacy in the oral health literature.
Synthesis in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2021. 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.
- Associated-Factor Studies in Biomedical Research: Foundations, Limitations, and Criteria for Appropriate Use.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Failure of Wide-Diameter Dental Implants (Predominantly 5.0 mm) Show Distinct Risk Profiles-A Large Cohort Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Article
- Development and Temporal Validation of a Multinomial Prediction Model for Phenotypes of Undiagnosed Hypertension in Peru: A Population-Based Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Developing a framework for identifying risk factors and estimating direct economic disease burden attributable to healthcare-associated infections: a case study of a Chinese Tuberculosis hospital.Global health research and policy · 2024Article
- Do more pregnancies increase the risk of periodontal disease?F1000Research · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundCoined by Westreich and Greenland in 2013, Table 2 fallacy refers to the practice of reporting estimates of the primary exposure and adjustment covariates derived from a single model on the same table. This study seeks to describe the extent to which Table 2 fallacy is present in the oral health literature and provide recommendations on presenting findings from multivariable-adjusted models and/or interpretation of adjustment covariate estimates that are not the primary exposure.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review in PubMed and Scopus of human observational studies published in 4 oral health journals (JDR-CTR, CDOE, JPHD, BMC Oral Health) starting in 2013 until the end of 2018. The resulting articles were exported into Excel and were either included or excluded for full-text review based on six criteria. After categorizing the articles, we exported and summarized the results in SAS.
resultsA total of 1358 articles were initially screened of which 937 articles were excluded based on title or abstract for being animal studies, systematic reviews or meta-analysis, prediction models or descriptive studies. The remaining 421 articles were eligible for full text reviewed of which, 189 (45%) committed Table 2 fallacy. The prevalence of table 2 fallacy appears high in the oral health literature.
conclusionsThe problem of presenting multiple effect estimates derived from a single model in the same table is that it inadvertently encourages the reader to interpret all estimates the same way, often as total effects. Implications and recommendations are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.