ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Use and misuse of ANOVA in in vitro biomaterials studies: A methodological analysis of the last ten years in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
Background: This study aimed to estimate the frequency and characterize the nature of methodological errors related to the selection, application, and interpretation of ANOVA and related tests in in vitro biomaterials studies published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (JCED) over the last ten years. Materials and Methods: A methodological review was conducted of original in vitro biomaterials articles published in JCED between 2016 and 2025. Studies reporting the use of ANOVA or derived procedures were included. Data were extracted on publication characteristics, statistical tests applied, verification of statistical assumptions, post hoc procedures, and statistical software. ANOVA use was classified as inappropriate when inconsistencies between reported and applied methods were identified, when assumption verification was inadequate or not specified, when post hoc procedures were inappropriate, or when statistical methods were incompletely reported. Results: A total of 345 in vitro biomaterials studies were included. Although ANOVA was widely used, complete verification of statistical assumptions based on model residuals was uncommon. The most frequent methodological errors associated with misused ANOVA were failure to specify the post hoc test used (50.0%) and inappropriate application of post hoc procedures (31.6%). Additional issues included incompatible post hoc tests following global analyses and discrepancies between methods and results. Conclusions: Despite its central role in in vitro dental research, ANOVA is frequently misused or inadequately reported in biomaterials studies. Strengthening statistical training and enforcing clearer editorial standards may substantially improve the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of experimental dental research.
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.