ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Exploring research training needs of oral healthcare professionals at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In alignment with Saudi Vision 2030, dental colleges are increasingly required to enhance research productivity and international academic standing. This study aimed to identify research training priorities among oral healthcare professionals at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A validated questionnaire was distributed to faculty members and comprised four sections: demographics, prior research training, self-rated performance vs. perceived importance of research competencies, and preferred training delivery methods. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses. Results: A total of 45 out of 61 faculty members completed the survey (response rate: 73.8%). Participants' evaluations of prior research training ranged from poor or fair to excellent, with the majority reporting training levels between good and very good. Research training priorities varied by academic rank, with assistant professors identifying a broader range of high-priority areas compared to associate professors and full professors. Conclusions: The findings support the development of targeted faculty development programs aligned with rank-specific research training priorities to strengthen research competencies and enhance institutional research capacity.
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.