ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Changes in ethics and transparency reporting in dental journal articles between 2021 and 2025: a full-text cross-journal analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Explicit reporting of research ethics and transparency practices is increasingly emphasized in biomedical publishing, but whether recent changes have occurred uniformly across reporting domains remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a full-text, cross-journal text-mining study of 240 dental journal articles published in 2021 and 2025, with 20 articles per journal-year stratum across six established dental journals. Full text was screened for eight predefined markers: ethics approval, informed consent, conflict-of-interest disclosure, funding disclosure, data availability, trial registration, animal ethics, and AI/LLM disclosure. Automated detection was checked against single-reader manual coding of a 36-article sample (96.2% agreement). Prevalence was compared using Fisher exact tests. Reported percentages are corpus-level detection rates across all 120 articles per year, not compliance rates among the studies to which each marker applies. Results: Data availability showed by far the largest change, increasing from 4.2% to 47.5% ( Discussion: These findings indicate uneven changes in dental reporting, with the clearest gains in data availability statements and little change in ethics approval, consent, or trial registration.
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.