ArticleBMC oral health2023
Quality of survey-based study reports in dentistry.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. 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.
- Defining the influence of digitalization on the future of dentistry through an educational handbook for Computer Aided Design tool training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Does the need for refinement sets of orthodontic clear aligners correlate with professional experience?Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Review
- The Impact of Technology Teaching in the Dental Predoctoral Curriculum on Students' Perception of Digital Dentistry.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Statistical Reporting Quality in Dental Research: A Comparative Analysis by Journal Impact and Study Design.Contemporary clinical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurveys are a widely used research method in dentistry in different specialities. The study aimed to determine the quality of survey-based research reports published in dentistry journals from 2015 to 2019.
methodsA cross-sectional descriptive research study was conducted. The report quality assessment was carried out through the SURGE guideline modified by Turk et al. Four journals indexed in the Web of Science were selected: BMC Oral Health, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Journal of Dental Education, and Journal of Applied Oral Science. The selection of articles was made using the PubMed database considering the following search words: questionnaire OR survey, two trained reviewers applied the guideline to the selected articles, and the controversies were solved by discussion and consensus.
resultsA total of 881 articles were identified, of which 99 met the selection criteria and were included in the study. The best-reported items (n = 99) were four: the two that described the introduction of a study, the results reflecting and concerning the study objectives, and the review by an ethics committee. Five items were poorly reported: to declare the incentives to study participants (n = 93), three items on the description of statistical analyses (n = 99, 99, and 94), and information on how nonrespondents differed from respondents (n = 92).
conclusionsThere is a moderate quality of reporting of all aspects that should be considered in survey-based studies in dentistry journals. Poorly reported criteria were found mainly in the statistical analysis.
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.