The evidence base for oral and maxillofacial surgery: 10-year analysis of two journals

Using sentiment analysis to identify similarities and differences in research topics and medical subject headings (MeSH terms) between Medicine (Baltimore) and the Journal of the Formosan Medical Association (JFMA) in 2020: A bibliometric study

Background:

Little systematic information has been collected about the nature and types of articles published in 2 journals by identifying the latent topics and analyzing the extracted research themes and sentiments using text mining and machine learning within the 2020 time frame. The goals of this study were to conduct a content analysis of articles published in 2 journals, describe the research type, identify possible gaps, and propose future agendas for readers.

Methods:

We downloaded 5610 abstracts in the journals of Medicine (Baltimore) and the Journal of the Formosan Medical Association (JFMA) from the PubMed library in 2020. Sentiment analysis (ie, opinion mining using a natural language processing technique) was performed to determine whether the article abstract was positive or negative toward sentiment to help readers capture article characteristics from journals. Cluster analysis was used to identify article topics based on medical subject headings (MeSH terms) using social network analysis (SNA). Forest plots were applied to distinguish the similarities and differences in article mood and MeSH terms between these 2 journals. The Q statistic and I 2 index were used to evaluate the difference in proportions of MeSH terms in journals.

Results:

The comparison of research topics between the 2 journals using the 737 cited articles was made and found that most authors are from mainland China and Taiwan in Medicine and JFMA, respectively, similarity is supported by observing the abstract mood (Q = 8.3, I 2 = 0, P = .68; Z = 0.46, P = .65), 2 journals are in a common cluster (named latent topic of patient and treatment) using SNA, and difference in overall effect was found by the odds ratios of MeSH terms (Q = 185.5 I 2 = 89.8, P < .001; Z = 5.93, P < .001) and a greater proportion of COVID-19 articles in JFMA.

Conclusions:

SNA and forest plots were provided to readers with deep insight into the relationships between journals in research topics using MeSH terms. The results of this research provide readers with a concept diagram for future submissions to a given journal.

Highlights

The main approaches frequently used in Meta-analysis for drawing forest plots contributed to the following:

Levels of evidence and journal impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a 15-year follow-up

This study was performed to assess changes over time in the quality of research in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) by examining the level of evidence of published articles. A secondary aim was to determine the relationship of the journal impact factor to these levels of evidence. The four major OMS journals with an impact factor were assessed. Articles published in 2017 and 2018 were categorized based on their level of evidence, and their correlation with the 2019 journal impact factor was investigated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rho). The total number of published articles increased by a factor of 2.4 over a 15-year period, from 932 in 2002-2003 to 2253 in 2017-2018. The percentage of articles increased by 1.0% for level I evidence, 3.4% for level II, 8.2% for level III, and 4.1% for level IV. Non-evidence articles reduced by 16.7%. All journals showed an increase in impact factor, and a significant correlation was noted between the proportion of published higher-level evidence articles and the impact factor over time (rho=0.811, P=0.001). It is concluded that OMS journals currently display a higher proportion of good quality articles leading to a better impact factor than 15 years ago.

Following the trend in maxillofacial surgery literature

Evidence-based medicine relies on the integration of high-quality research with clinical expertise and patient values. The hierarchy of evidence allows the clinician to assign value to research based on the methodological quality of the study design and its applicability to the clinical question. Improvements in the quality of research in oral and maxillofacial surgery aim to strengthen evidence-based medicine and patient care. Analysis of the trends in maxillofacial surgery publications can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current body of research, and direct researchers to areas that require improvement. The aim of this study was to review the proportion of the types of articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 2010 and December 2019. These data were compared with a previously published review that summarised the proportion published in 2000 - 2009. The topics chosen for meta-analysis and the number of qualitative studies were also summarised. In total, 4931 articles were reviewed over the 10-year period. Compared with the previous 10 years, there was an increase in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses, and a reduction in case series and case reports. Implantology and dentoalveolar surgery were the most common topics chosen for meta-analysis. Overall, the trend in the maxillofacial literature is towards a higher quality body of research.

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

AIMS

To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS.

RESULTS

Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

INTRODUCTION

Open access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

We investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies.

RESULTS

3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals.

DISCUSSION

These findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re- assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscription-only format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[Quality of publications in plastic surgery]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to describe plastic surgery publications in terms of methodology, level of evidence, approval by institutional review board, method of consent, and subspecialty.

METHODS

The 8 top-ranked plastic surgery journals were selected. We manually reviewed the last 40 original articles in each plastic surgery journal, to represent more than 2 months of publications for all journals (range: 3-17 months). Only clinical original articles on human subjects were included. Each article was read at least twice by two different reviewers to ensure accurate data transcription, and then graded by written criteria. One of the senior authors was asked to make a final decision in case of doubt.

RESULTS

Among the articles reviewed, 320 were analyzed. The geographical origin of these publications were Asia (32.5%), Europe (30%), US (28.4%), South America (5.6%), Africa (2.5%), and finally Oceania (1%). Reconstructive surgery remains the specialty area most represented in the journals with almost half of the publications, followed by breast surgery (24%) and plastic surgery (19%). A total of 75.6% were retrospective studies. Nearly 80% of the studies were of low level of evidence. Only 3.5% were randomized trials. Less than 40% of the publications mentioned approval by an institutional committee, and 22.6% a patient's informed consent.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to analyze the quality of plastic surgery publications, taking into account the criteria of Evidence Based Medicine. This work showed that more than half of the studies did not mention an institutional review board approval (Ethics Committee), and that three quarter of the studies did not indicate the presence of patient's informed consent. Ultimately, over 80% of the studies were of low level of evidence. The top-ranked journals have already imposed guidelines corresponding to the methodology requirements to publish clinical studies in their pages, such as EQUATOR criteria for the PRS journal. Efforts are therefore to be done to raise the scientific level of the publications of our specialty.