CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Writing and Publishingscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

Open access
Koletsi, Despina, Pandis, Nikolaos, Polychronopoulou, Argy, Eliades, Theodore·2012·Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice
DOI 10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.05.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.Methods The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS), the International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), and the Journal of Endodontics (JOE) were hand searched for clinical trials labeled in the title as randomized from 1979 to July 2011. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and univariable and multivariable examination of statistical associations via ordinal logistic regression modeling (proportional odds model).Results A total of 222 trials were identified. From the included trials, 88 (39.64%) were considered to be RCTs, 107 (48.20%) were considered to be of unclear status, and 27 (12.16%) were not considered as RCTs. In the multivariable analysis among the included variables, journal type, involvement of statistician, year of publication, multicenter trial, and number of authors were significant predictors of correctly classifying a study as an RCT versus no RCT and of unclear status.Conclusions This study indicates the need for clear and accurate reporting of clinical trials and the need for educating investigators on RCT methodology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.05.002

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Previous research found that only 39.6% of articles titled RCTs in high-impact dental journals were, in fact, RCTs.

    “Previous research found that only 39.6% of articles titled RCTs in high-impact dental journals were, in fact, RCTs 33 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Koletsi, D., Pandis, N., Polychronopoulou, A., & Eliades, T.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Pandis, Nikolaos
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
124-130
ISSN
1532-3382 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.05.002
OpenAlex
W2028553901
Cited by
18
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, study design reporting, research methodology training, trial reporting quality
MeSH terms
Dentistry, Publications, Publishing, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Journal Impact Factor

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