ReviewOdontology2026
Analysis of the profile of metric-based reviews published in dentistry and proposal for a standardized guideline: metrics.
Review in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- Digital behavior management in pediatric dentistry: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2025).The Saudi dental journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metric-based reviews have been rapidly growing in dentistry. Analyzing their scientific profile and proposing a design method is essential for ensuring quality. This study aims to analyze the profile of metric-based reviews and establish a reporting guideline for such studies in dentistry. The search for articles was conducted in Scopus in December 2024. The main characteristics of the studies were extracted. Collaborative network maps were created using VOSviewer. A guideline was developed based on the profile of the selected reviews. A total of 683 articles were included in the analysis. A significant highlight was observed for bibliometric reviews (n = 631), followed by altmetric studies (n = 31), which were typically global in nature (n = 497). Most reviews aimed to evaluate the scientific landscape of a specific dental topic (n = 530). The articles were primarily associated with general dentistry (n = 172). Most studies conducted their searches in a single database (n = 530). Bibliometric analyses were predominantly conducted on the Web of Science (n = 248), while altmetric analyses were mainly conducted on Altmetric (n = 31). Brazil was the country with the highest representation (n = 121). The practical guide (METRICS) was developed based on the analysis of the reviews. Metric-based analyses have grown dramatically in recent years in the field of dentistry. These studies were mainly global bibliometric reviews associated with general dentistry, with a significant contribution from Brazilian researchers. The protocol developed is essential for ensuring standardization and higher quality in future analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40947434What 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.