ArticleBMC oral health2024
Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpen Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease.
methodsWe searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from January 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these articles to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the articles. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the "Instructions for Authors" section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published.
results64.8% of the articles (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3-70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the articles. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few articles adopted other practices. Older articles presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and articles published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes.
conclusionThe RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.
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.