ArticleBioinformation2026
Data integrity in Prosthodontics: A systematic review.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The validity of clinical research depends on robust statistical methodology, yet peer review often fails to identify analytical flaws, particularly in Prosthodontics where statistical errors can mislead evidence-based practice. Therefore, it is of interest to audits the statistical rigor of available data on this issue. Hence, 328 publications were systematically analysed. Our analysis shows that about one-third demonstrated rigorous, assumption-validated analyses, while nearly half showed ambiguous or inappropriate usage. Common issues included lack of assumption checks, inadequate adjustment for multiple comparisons, and missing sample size justifications. Thus, we show the urgent need for improved editorial standards, mandatory reporting checklists, and dedicated statistical review to ensure transparency and research integrity.
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.