What are we reading now? An update on the papers published in the orthodontic literature (1999–2008)

Jayne E. Harrison

13 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Orthodontics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

AIMS: To assess differences between articles published in the Journal of Orthodontics (JO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from 1999 to 2008 and compare longitudinal publication profiles. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational. METHODS: The main study examined articles from the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and Angle Orthodontist alongside the JO and EJO. All journals were hand-searched to identify eligible articles. A random sample from these articles was obtained to provide 80% power to detect a 100% increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the 5% level of significance. Each article was classified according to pre-determined criteria by one author (RG). Variations between journals were assessed using the chi-squared test or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A random sample of 425 articles was obtained from 4301 eligible articles, of which 113 were from the JO or EJO. About 34·5% of articles were from the JO and 66·5% the EJO. Statistically significant differences were found between the type (P<0·001), subject (P=0·049), method/direction (P=0·038) and controls (P=0·006) of articles published in the two journals. When compared longitudinally the proportion of RCTs published between 1989 and 1993 (2·8%) and 1999-2008 (18·5%) was statistically significant (OR=8·0, 95% CI 2·8, 23·1). Statistically significant differences were seen over time in all aspects investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant differences were found in the publication profiles of the two orthodontic journals during the period examined and longitudinally. A piece of clinical research was 8 times more likely to be an RCT during 1999-2008, compared to 1989-1993.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 1979The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.1977An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2003Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies 2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.