Cited by 58Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsMethodologies in Health Research and PracticeAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Open access
Pandis, N., Fleming, P.S., Katsaros, C., Ioannidis, J.P.A.·2021·Journal of Dental Research

Abstract

Research waste is highly prevalent across biomedical investigations. We aimed to assess the evidence on the extent of research waste in dental research. We performed a scoping review of empirical evaluations of dental studies assessing the prevalence and impact of limitations in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research. PubMed was searched using specific terms to retrieve studies dealing with design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies in dentistry, with no year or language restrictions. Of the 1,807 publications identified from the search and from manual searches, 71 were included in this review. The topic and article selection was based on the expert opinion of the authors. The existing evidence suggests that, although there are improvements over time, substantial deficiencies in all areas (design, conduct, analysis, reporting) were prevalent in dental research publications. Waste in research is a multifaceted problem without a simple solution. However, an appreciation of optimal research design and execution is a prerequisite and should be underpinned by policies that include appropriate training in research methods and properly aligned incentives.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022034520962751

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [23]23. Holden ACL, Spallek H. 2018. Looking Gift-horses in the Mouth: Gift-giving, Incentives and Conflict of Interest in the Dental Profession. J Law Med. 25(3):794-799.
  2. [41]41. Lee KC, Chuang S-K. 2020. Financial conflicts of interest in dentistry: how much money do providers receive from industry? Gen Dent. 68(1):56-60.
  3. [64]64. Smaïl-Faugeron V, Fron-Chabouis H, Durieux P. 2015. Clinical trial registration in oral health journals. J Dent Res. 94(3):8S-13S.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pandis, N., Fleming, P. S., Katsaros, C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Pandis, N.
Venue
Journal of Dental Research
Published
2020-10-15
Volume
100
Issue
3
Pages
245-252
ISSN
  • 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-0591
OpenAlex
W3092659595
Cited by
58
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
research waste, dental research, study design flaws, research conduct, reporting quality, research methodology training, research incentives, research quality
MeSH terms
Research Design, Dental Research

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