ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2021
The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping risk of bias criteria in systematic reviews of in vitro endodontic studies: an umbrella review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Using LLM-generated tools to extract information about reporting statistical software in biomedical and health science research articles.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Statistical software reporting in dental research: an evaluation of current practices.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Review
- Key statistical recommendations for medical journals: insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study Collaborators.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Statistics in medical research: Common mistakes.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updatedF1000Research · 2023Article
- Assessing the impact of predatory journals on policy and guidance documents: a cross-sectional study protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- The use of the phrase "data not shown" in dental research.PloS one · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in 'predatory dental journals' and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in 'predatory open access (OA) journals' and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (
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.