The Reporting Quality of Split-Mouth Studies in Implant Dentistry: A Survey

Harriet Philine Pfannenstiel; Nikolaos Pandis; Jadbinder Seehra; Clovis Mariano Faggion

doi:10.11607/jomi.9745

The Reporting Quality of Split-Mouth Studies in Implant Dentistry: A Survey

Harriet Philine Pfannenstiel, Nikolaos Pandis, Jadbinder Seehra, Clovis Mariano Faggion^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Centre for Dental Education

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The results of trials can inform health care decisions. However, this is dependent on both clear and transparent reporting. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry in relation to the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting within-person randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: Split-mouth trials published between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2020, were identiﬁed from four databases. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were extracted. Each trial was assessed against a 37-item checklist and assigned one of four categories. Descriptive statistics and the frequencies of the ratings per checklist item were calculated. A percentage score was calculated per study. Linear regression assessed associations between the aggregate score and the study characteristics. Results: Two hundred forty-four trials were analyzed. More than 50% of the RCTs were published between 2016 and 2020, were published in specialty journals (81.2%), and were interventional-type RCTs (98.4%). Generally, the reporting of checklist items was suboptimal in many areas. The reporting score was predicated by the number of authors (> 7 vs baseline [1 to 4] authors: β: 6.00; 1.48, 10.52; P =.01), authors’ continent (Europe vs Americas: β: 5.30; 0.85, 9.74; P.02), and the number of participants (per-unit increase: β:.07; 0.01, 0.12; P =.02). Conclusion: The reporting of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry seems to be suboptimal. The endorsement and adherence to the CONSORT extension for the within-person trials checklist by journal editors and investigators could improve reporting quality and transparency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:447–454. doi:10.11607/jomi.9745

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	447-454
Number of pages	8
Journal	International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
Volume	37
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9745
Publication status	Published - 2022

Keywords

Data reporting
Dental implants
Methods
Randomized controlled trial
Research design

Access to Document

10.11607/jomi.9745

Cite this

@article{90591705a485403483751a0305b29cc4,

title = "The Reporting Quality of Split-Mouth Studies in Implant Dentistry: A Survey",

abstract = "The results of trials can inform health care decisions. However, this is dependent on both clear and transparent reporting. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry in relation to the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting within-person randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: Split-mouth trials published between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2020, were identiﬁed from four databases. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were extracted. Each trial was assessed against a 37-item checklist and assigned one of four categories. Descriptive statistics and the frequencies of the ratings per checklist item were calculated. A percentage score was calculated per study. Linear regression assessed associations between the aggregate score and the study characteristics. Results: Two hundred forty-four trials were analyzed. More than 50% of the RCTs were published between 2016 and 2020, were published in specialty journals (81.2%), and were interventional-type RCTs (98.4%). Generally, the reporting of checklist items was suboptimal in many areas. The reporting score was predicated by the number of authors (> 7 vs baseline [1 to 4] authors: β: 6.00; 1.48, 10.52; P =.01), authors{\textquoteright} continent (Europe vs Americas: β: 5.30; 0.85, 9.74; P.02), and the number of participants (per-unit increase: β:.07; 0.01, 0.12; P =.02). Conclusion: The reporting of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry seems to be suboptimal. The endorsement and adherence to the CONSORT extension for the within-person trials checklist by journal editors and investigators could improve reporting quality and transparency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:447–454. doi:10.11607/jomi.9745",

keywords = "Data reporting, Dental implants, Methods, Randomized controlled trial, Research design",

author = "Pfannenstiel, {Harriet Philine} and Nikolaos Pandis and Jadbinder Seehra and Faggion, {Clovis Mariano}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.11607/jomi.9745",

language = "English",

volume = "37",

pages = "447--454",

journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",

issn = "0882-2786",

publisher = "Quintessence Publishing",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Reporting Quality of Split-Mouth Studies in Implant Dentistry

T2 - A Survey

AU - Pfannenstiel, Harriet Philine

AU - Pandis, Nikolaos

AU - Seehra, Jadbinder

AU - Faggion, Clovis Mariano

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - The results of trials can inform health care decisions. However, this is dependent on both clear and transparent reporting. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry in relation to the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting within-person randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: Split-mouth trials published between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2020, were identiﬁed from four databases. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were extracted. Each trial was assessed against a 37-item checklist and assigned one of four categories. Descriptive statistics and the frequencies of the ratings per checklist item were calculated. A percentage score was calculated per study. Linear regression assessed associations between the aggregate score and the study characteristics. Results: Two hundred forty-four trials were analyzed. More than 50% of the RCTs were published between 2016 and 2020, were published in specialty journals (81.2%), and were interventional-type RCTs (98.4%). Generally, the reporting of checklist items was suboptimal in many areas. The reporting score was predicated by the number of authors (> 7 vs baseline [1 to 4] authors: β: 6.00; 1.48, 10.52; P =.01), authors’ continent (Europe vs Americas: β: 5.30; 0.85, 9.74; P.02), and the number of participants (per-unit increase: β:.07; 0.01, 0.12; P =.02). Conclusion: The reporting of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry seems to be suboptimal. The endorsement and adherence to the CONSORT extension for the within-person trials checklist by journal editors and investigators could improve reporting quality and transparency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:447–454. doi:10.11607/jomi.9745

AB - The results of trials can inform health care decisions. However, this is dependent on both clear and transparent reporting. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry in relation to the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting within-person randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: Split-mouth trials published between January 1, 1997, and September 30, 2020, were identiﬁed from four databases. Study characteristics at the level of each trial were extracted. Each trial was assessed against a 37-item checklist and assigned one of four categories. Descriptive statistics and the frequencies of the ratings per checklist item were calculated. A percentage score was calculated per study. Linear regression assessed associations between the aggregate score and the study characteristics. Results: Two hundred forty-four trials were analyzed. More than 50% of the RCTs were published between 2016 and 2020, were published in specialty journals (81.2%), and were interventional-type RCTs (98.4%). Generally, the reporting of checklist items was suboptimal in many areas. The reporting score was predicated by the number of authors (> 7 vs baseline [1 to 4] authors: β: 6.00; 1.48, 10.52; P =.01), authors’ continent (Europe vs Americas: β: 5.30; 0.85, 9.74; P.02), and the number of participants (per-unit increase: β:.07; 0.01, 0.12; P =.02). Conclusion: The reporting of split-mouth trials in implant dentistry seems to be suboptimal. The endorsement and adherence to the CONSORT extension for the within-person trials checklist by journal editors and investigators could improve reporting quality and transparency. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:447–454. doi:10.11607/jomi.9745

KW - Data reporting

KW - Dental implants

KW - Methods

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132293628&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.9745

DO - 10.11607/jomi.9745

M3 - Article

C2 - 35727234

AN - SCOPUS:85132293628

SN - 0882-2786

VL - 37

SP - 447

EP - 454

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

IS - 3

ER -

The Reporting Quality of Split-Mouth Studies in Implant Dentistry: A Survey

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this