ArticleHealth science reports2025
Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective-Based Proposal.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of build orientation on fracture load and surface roughness of three-unit provisional fixed partial dentures fabricated by digital light processing.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Implant Angulation on Digital Impression Accuracy of Three-Unit Implant-Supported Restorations.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of digital splints versus traditional splints for bruxism management: a systematic review.BDJ open · 2026Review
- Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective-Based Proposal.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Significant variability in research methodologies within prosthodontics limits the comparability of findings and reduces the strength of evidence-based conclusions. The establishment of a Prosthodontic Research Methodology Council (PRMC) is proposed to develop standardized, consensus-based methodological frameworks aimed at improving research reliability and peer review efficiency. Methods: Limitations in current prosthodontic research designs and methodological inconsistencies were reviewed through a narrative search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using keywords related to prosthodontic research methodology, standardization, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Relevant meta-research studies and consensus-based initiatives in dentistry and medicine, including CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE frameworks, were analyzed. Insights from these initiatives were used to conceptualize the PRMC structure, governance, and phased implementation strategy, incorporating Delphi consensus methods for harmonizing research protocols. Results: The proposed PRMC model consists of a multidisciplinary expert consortium representing academia, clinical practice, industry, and journal editorial boards. A four-phase implementation plan is outlined: (1) formation of a steering committee and identification of priority research areas, (2) development of consensus-based methodological guidelines, (3) pilot implementation of pre-study methodological reviews in selected journals, and (4) widespread adoption across international research networks. Expected outcomes include enhanced reproducibility, improved comparability of findings, reduced heterogeneity in systematic reviews, and greater efficiency in peer review processes. Conclusion: The PRMC framework provides a structured approach to address methodological variability in prosthodontics. Through harmonized study designs and strengthened international collaboration, this initiative is expected to improve the reliability of research outcomes and facilitate the integration of high-quality evidence into clinical practice.
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.