Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996–2005

MJ Patel · SL Hirt · Mel L. Kantor

12 citations0/0 files storedDentomaxillofacial Radiology

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

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence that is published in the oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMR) literature. METHODS: OMR papers published in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology and Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology between 1996 and 2005 were classified using epidemiological study design and diagnostic efficacy hierarchies. The country of origin and number of authors were noted. RESULTS: Of the 725 articles, 384 could be classified with the epidemiological study design hierarchy: 155 (40%) case reports/series and 207 (54%) cross-sectional studies. The distribution of study designs was not statistically significant across time (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.06) or regions (P = 0.89). The diagnostic efficacy hierarchy was applicable to 246 articles: 71 (29%) technical efficacy and 166 (67%) diagnostic accuracy studies. The distribution of efficacy levels was not statistically significant across time (P = 0.22) but was significant across regions (P < 0.01). Authors from Japan produced 26% of the papers with a mean ± standard deviation of 5.78 ± 1.98 authors per paper (APP); American authors, 23% (3.78 ± 1.72 APP); and all others, 51% (3.76 ± 1.51 APP). CONCLUSION: The OMR literature consisted mostly of case reports/series, cross-sectional, technical efficacy and diagnostic accuracy studies. Such studies do not provide strong evidence for clinical decision making nor do they address the impact of diagnostic imaging on patient care. More studies at the higher end of the study design and efficacy hierarchies are needed in order to make wise choices regarding clinical decisions and resource allocations.

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 — 12 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses: Table 1 1979Clinical Research in General Medical Journals 2003Biomedical publication—global profile and trend 1999Clinical Epidemiological Quality in Molecular Genetic Research 2008Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: No Change Since STARD Statement Publication—Before-and-after Study 1991Clinical Research in Otolaryngology Journals 2005Quality of clinical studies in neurosurgical journals: signs of improvement over three decades 2001Methodology standards associated with quality reporting in clinical studies in pediatric surgery journals

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.