The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science Practices?
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1 · Paper page
Abstract
Background Open Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease. Methods We searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these manuscripts to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the manuscripts. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the “Instructions for Authors” section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published. Results 64.8% of the manuscripts (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3–70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the manuscripts. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few manuscripts adopted other practices. Older manuscripts presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and manuscripts published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes. Conclusion The RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem
Thibault, R. T., Amaral, O. B., Argolo, F., Bandrowski, A. E., Davidson, A. R., & Drude, N. I. (2023) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362 · Cited by 72
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Acosta, C. P., Cenci, J., Brondani, B., Elagami, R. A., Pereira-Cenci, T., Cenci, M. S., Huysmans, M.-C. D. N. J. M., Raggio, D. P., Braga, M. M., & Mendes, F. M.
- Affiliations
- University of São Paulo
- Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Research Institute for Medical Innovation, Radboud university medical center
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Mendes, Fausto Medeiros
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Oral Health
- Published
- 2024-04-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1431-1431
- ISSN
- 1472-6831 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11585932
- OpenAlex
- W4404644158
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Oral Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2022/16528‐3)
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- open science practices, dental caries, randomized controlled trials, research integrity, reporting guidelines, protocol registration, open access publishing, data sharing, statistical analysis plan, open peer review, impact factor
- MeSH terms
- Dental Caries, Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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