ArticleBMC health services research2024
Insights and networks: methodological assessment and scientometric analysis of economic evaluations in dentistry.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionAssessing the methodological quality of economic evaluations (EEs) is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. The study aimed to evaluate EEs in restorative dentistry and endodontics, while also analyzing the scientific landscape of researchers and publications through co-authorship and citation network analysis providing an insight into the distribution of scientific expertise. METHODOLOGY: A systematic search for relevant articles from 2012 to 2022 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. The ten-point Drummond checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of included studies. Bibliometric data for network analysis were extracted from the Dimensions database and visualized using VOSviewer software.
resultsOf the 37 articles, 81.08% scored good, 16.21% average, and 2.7% poor on the methodological rating scale. Most of the included studies were in Q1 journals, with limited representation in Q2 and Q3 journals. Compliance was highest in Q2 journals (95%), followed by Q1 (88.36%), while it dropped to 40% for Q3 journals. Co-authorship analysis revealed a dense network of researchers, with Prof. Falk Schwendicke V. having a significant influence. Moreover, the Journal of Dentistry had the highest impact, followed by Journal of Endodontics and BMC Oral Health.
conclusionsDespite a diverse scientific landscape, participation from developing countries was limited emphasizing the need for inclusivity and diversity in the scientific network. While the quantity of good-quality studies was encouraging, the overall quality of evidence remains paramount for decision-making in healthcare policy and practice. Therefore, continuous efforts to improve methodological rigor and reporting practices are essential to contribute robust evidence.
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.