A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature

Zuhair Saleh Natto · Ahmad Aljehani · Anfal Sarhan · Elaf Youssef Nawawi · Hanan Abdullatef · Lina Samarkandi +6 more

6 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

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

AIMS: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. RESULTS: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidence-based dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.

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 — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures 2002Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions 2013Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare 1998Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough 2006The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency 1996Methodologic standards in surgical trials 2013How to write a scientific manuscript for publication.2006What Is the Methodologic Quality of Human Therapy Studies in ISI Surgical Publications?

Cited by

2022Recent trends in dental research in Saudi Arabia: Mapping review (2010–2020)

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.