ArticleEuropean journal of oral sciences2026
Transparency and conflicts of interest disclosure at an international periodontology conference.
Article in European journal of oral sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to evaluate whether presenter information related to potential conflicts of interest (COIs) is adequately disclosed on the official EuroPerio and European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) websites; (2) to assess how speakers report COI-related information during their presentations; and (3) to examine the criteria used for selecting conference presenters. The programme and video presentations from EuroPerio 11 (May 2025) were systematically analysed. Among 163 invited presenters, only six (4%) disclosed potential COIs on the conference website, and these disclosures lacked detail. Of 160 analysed presentations, 30.1% declared no COI, 19.6% declared potential COIs, and 48.5% made no disclosure; the median disclosure duration was seven seconds. Observations revealed that COI statements were typically brief, suggesting that disclosure was often treated as a formality rather than a substantive ethical practice. No explicit or publicly accessible criteria for presenter selection were identified on either the conference or federation websites. These findings indicate substantial underreporting of both financial and non-financial COIs, limited enforcement of disclosure practices, and a lack of transparency in presenter selection. Clear, standardised, and verifiable procedures for COI reporting and presenter selection are needed to strengthen scientific integrity and maintain audience trust.
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.