ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-research sought to evaluate the conduct, reporting, and main characteristics of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. A search was performed on PubMed for RCTs in dentistry indexed from 31 December 2016 to 31 December 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for the presence of eligibility criteria. Only studies in English were considered. Journal and author data, subject, citation and publishing metrics, reporting, and details of study conduct were collected. A descriptive analysis of the data, a map depicting the number of RCTs per country, and a network graph of scientific collaboration among different countries were presented. We included 844 articles. The main research area was periodontics (16.35%). The highest number of RCTs was attributed to Brazil (16.59%). Authors from the USA established the most links with other countries. Most studies did not report the use of CONSORT (67.89%), the type of randomization (69.31%), or the mechanism used to implement the random allocation sequence (52.37%). However, most studies included "randomized" in the title (71.92%) and reported the method for generating a random allocation sequence (65.88%) and blinding (74.88%). RCTs are the basis for clinical decision-making. Our results provide a better view of current RCTs and identify areas that require improvement. Brazil was the country that produced the most RCTs, and the USA was the main collaborator. We emphasize the variability of reporting characteristics and study conduct.
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.