ArticleBMC oral health2024
Opinions of professors, dental students, and patients for publishing the patient images in the articles.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe journals must have an instruction for writers to observe the essential ethical principles like privacy-preserving, secrecy, and keeping the patients' identities hidden. Even though patient secrecy is an important ideology in medicine's ethics, most journals have a little guide on this topic for the authors. According to the absence of such studies in dentistry and limited studies in medicine, our goal in this article is to review the opinions of professors, Kerman dentistry students, and patients for publishing the patient images in the articles.
methodThis research is an analytical, sectional, and descriptive study. The studied society includes the professors of the dentistry faculty (54 people), the 4th to 6th years dentistry students (122 people), and 129 patients who referred to the offices, the faculty, and other clinics in Kerman city base on simple random sampling method. A query including the personal questions, and questions related to the participants' opinions about publishing the images was given to contributors. Abundance, average tables, chi-square (χ 2) test, T-test, and SPSS 21 software were used for data description.
resultsThe contributors' attitudes were different in three groups of participants: more than half of the patients (58.91%), 39.5% of students, and 31.38% of professors believed that no permission is needed. While, 64.34% of the patients, 89.34% of students, and 83.3% of professors believed that written permission is needed for publishing.
conclusionFrom the participants' viewpoints, more strict forms are needed by increasing identity recognizability. The professors are more eager than the patients to receive patients' permission for any kind of image. By reducing the level of identification, doctors and students are more eager than patients to receive approvals.
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.