Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Three of the Most Citable Periodontal Journals from 2018 to 2022

Fahad Alharbi · Khalid Gufran · Muzammil Moin Ahmed · Abdulaziz Alsakr · Abdullah Almutairi

6 citations0/0 files storedHealthcare

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 Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Three leading periodontology journals, the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR), were selected for this investigation. The RCTs were identified by manually searching for human trial articles published in these three journals. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, and a pre-piloted extraction sheet was used to screen the potential RCTs. The CONSORT checklist guidelines were employed to calculate the score value. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed by scoring a random sample of 10% of the papers in a second round conducted by the first examiner three months after the initial data collection. A search of abstracts published over a five-year period yielded 176 articles that reported RCTs, accounting for 11.7% of all articles published in the three journals. The highest number of RCTs was published in 2020, and more than half of the included RCTs (51%) originated from Europe. Many of the analyzed RCTs inadequately reported almost half of the items on the CONSORT checklist. Furthermore, univariate analysis revealed significant associations between certain factors and the overall CONSORT score, such as publication in JOP (p = 0.048), publication year of 2019 (p = 0.041) and 2021 (p = 0.042), first author from North America (p = 0.016), and RCTs with more than six authors (p = 0.042). Clinical trial research in periodontics has made significant progress in the past five years. However, there is room for improvement in adhering to the CONSORT guidelines.

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

2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?2010CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2014Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research 2012Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials 1994Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology 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.