Cited by 73Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research

Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael, Cenci, Maximiliano Sérgio, Demarco, Flávio Fernando, Lynch, Christopher D., Fleming, Padhraig S., Pereira-Cenci, Tatiana, Moher, David·2015·Journal of Dentistry

Abstract

Objective The use of reporting guideline is directed at enhancing the completeness and transparency of biomedical publications. The aims of this paper are to present some of the key initiatives and guidelines providing indications and directions on the use of specific tools in oral health research.Methods The EQUATOR Network and five established guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE and SPIRIT) are introduced.Results Five guidelines are presented covering reporting of case reports, non-randomized studies, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. The importance of adherence to these guidelines by oral health researchers is emphasized.Conclusions Endorsement and robust implementation of reporting guidelines will translate into improved and more complete reporting in health research. Moreover, by ingraining the use of guidelines, it may be possible to indirectly improve the methodological quality of clinical studies. Active implementation strategies to encourage adherence to these guidelines among researchers, reviewers, editors and publishers may be an important facet in the advancement of knowledge in dentistry.Clinical significance Inadequate reporting of research can lead to wasted research resources and risks publication of inaccurate or misleading findings with implications on healthcare decisions. Familiarity and diligent compliance with methodological and reporting guidelines are therefore essential to maximize the yield from dental research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 73

Authors
Sarkis-Onofre, R., Cenci, M. S., Demarco, F. F., Lynch, C. D., Fleming, P. S., Pereira-Cenci, T., & Moher, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Journal of Dentistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
397-404
ISSN
0300-5712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123305639
Cited by
73
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Dentistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (99999.014351/2013-07)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
reporting guidelines, oral health research, research transparency, EQUATOR Network, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, care, alcoholic beverages, non-randomized studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, methodological quality, guideline adherence, dental research
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Quality Control, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Dental Research, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review