ReviewBMC medical research methodology2026
Statistical software reporting in dental research: an evaluation of current practices.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatistical software plays a central role in quantitative dental research, yet reporting practices remain inconsistent and often incomplete. Missing information on software names, versions, and analytical components limits methodological transparency and reduces reproducibility. This study systematically evaluated the current status of statistical software reporting in dental research publications.
methodsA methodological review was conducted following relevant elements of PRISMA 2020. Articles published in 2024 in the five highest-ranked and five lowest-ranked dentistry journals listed in the SJR Scimago database were screened. Eligible studies included empirical quantitative research and meta-analyses. Data extraction captured the software name, version, publisher, R packages, and the consistency of software reporting between the methods and results sections. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to summarise reporting patterns and assess differences across journal ranking groups.
resultsOf the 1,014 screened articles, 808 met the inclusion criteria. Statistical software was reported in 84.5% of studies, while 15.5% presented quantitative analyses without identifying any software. Among studies that reported software, 77.8% provided only the software name, and 6.6% reported complete details including version and publisher. SPSS was the most frequently reported software (45.2%). Reporting completeness did not differ significantly between high- and low-ranked journals (p = 0.13).
conclusionStatistical software reporting in dental research is often incomplete, limiting transparency and reproducibility. Adoption of clearer and more standardised reporting guidelines may help improve methodological clarity across the field.
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.