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

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping

AIM

To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis.

RESULTS

We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

25 years of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR): A modern bibliometric and Altmetrics network analysis

INTRODUCTION

Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter-century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry.

RESULTS

Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in "Dentistry (miscellaneous)" and "Oral Surgery" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. "Implant system/design/characteristics," "Bone Augmentation," and "Implant Prosthesis" were the top most investigated topics.

CONCLUSIONS

The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high-level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country- and author-collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

Level of evidence analysis of the Saudi Dental Journal: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 2012 to 2021

Objectives

The Level of Evidence (LOE) ranking system is used to measure the methodological quality of research. This study aimed to analyze and evaluate the trends of LOEs in articles published in the Saudi Dental Journal (SDJ) between 2012 and 2021.

Methodology

The bibliometric details of all articles published from 2012 to 2021 were extracted from the SDJ website. All articles, expect editorials, were included in the analysis. The articles were divided based on LOEs, dental specialties, number of authors, and centers. The citation metrics were obtained from Google Scholar, and the statistical analysis was performed using JMP Pro 15.2.0 software.

Results

Five hundred twenty-two articles were selected for analysis. They had an average of 21.19 citations per article, and a growing trend in the number of articles was observed. Authors from 40 countries contributed to the articles, with the most contributions from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Most articles (n = 269; 51.53%) were LOE IV and V, while a low proportion (5.56%) were LOE I articles. Aside from miscellaneous articles, periodontics composed most of the LOE I studies, followed by endodontics, and oral and maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS). Orthodontics had the highest number of LOE II studies, pediatric dentistry had the most LOE IV, and prosthodontics had the most LOE V studies. No significant correlations were found between LOE and the number of authors or centers. However, a significant correlation was found in the distribution of LOE contributed by academic institutes.

Conclusion

The study results highlight that most articles were LOE IV and V, whereas nominal LOE I articles were found. Furthermore, there is a need to encourage dental scientists to carry out high-quality evidence studies. Professional dental societies can play a pivotal role in this regard.

Impact of COVID-19 Dentistry-Related Literature: An Altmetric Study

INTRODUCTION

Scientific literature on COVID-19 has grown rapidly during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the popularity on the web of the available dental publications on COVID-19 and to examine associations amongst article characteristics, online mentions, and citations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Altmetric Explorer search was conducted for COVID-19 articles published in dental journals using 3 keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and pandemic. The following Altmetric data were collected: Altmetric attention score (AAS), mentions by news outlets, tweets, Mendeley readers, and Web of Science citations. Additionally, article title, type, topic, origin and open access status, journal title, quartile of impact factor (IF) distribution, and time lapse between COVID-19 pandemic onset and publication date were analysed.

RESULTS

In all, 253 articles published in 48 dental journals were eligible for the study. AAS was significantly influenced by article topic, type, origin, and journal IF quartile. There was a negligible correlation between AAS and Web of Science citations. Mendeley was the only Altmetric source highly correlated with citations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial online interest in COVID-19 dentistry-related literature, as depicted by the AAS of the reviewed articles and social media metrics. Mendeley reader counts were highly correlated with citations, and they may therefore be valuable in research impact evaluation.

Characteristics, level of evidence, and impact of clinical studies on peri-implantitis: 2017 to 2021

BACKGROUND

The level of evidence (LOE) is an important tool in current evidence-based practice and clinical research. However, in clinical studies on peri-implantitis, the present status of the LOE and its association with research impact remains to be determined. The present study aimed to gather the characteristics and LOE of clinical studies on peri-implantitis conducted from 2017 to 2021 and assess the association of the LOE with social and scientific impact.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched to retrieve clinical studies that evaluated peri-implantitis-related healthcare interventions and were published between 2017 and 2021. A 4-level modified Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to determine the LOE of these studies. Citation count and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were derived from the Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Multivariate generalized estimation equation (GEE) analysis was conducted to explore relationships between the LOE and citation count, and between the LOE and AAS; the publication year was considered the grouping factor for adjusting for potential clustering effects.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-five studies were considered eligible. The percentages by level from Level-1 to Level-4 were 9.8%, 35.7%, 28.9%, and 25.5%. Multivariable GEE analyses revealed that studies with higher LOE ratings had significantly greater citation counts (p = 0.008). However, no significant association (p = 0.872) was observed between the LOE and AAS.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2017 to 2021, more than 40% of studies published on peri-implantitis each year had high-LOE ratings. High-LOE studies showed a tendency to have greater scientific impact.

Level of evidence and characteristics of clinical studies published in leading prosthodontics journals

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Data on the level of evidence and the characteristics of studies published in peer-reviewed prosthodontic journals are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) scores of studies published in 3 leading peer-reviewed prosthodontic journals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical studies published in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD), the Journal of Prosthodontics (JP), and the International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP) in 2013 and 2020 were included in the analysis. Abstracts, letters to the editor, book reviews, and animal and laboratory studies were excluded from the investigation. For each study, design, type and LOE scores (Levels 1 to 5), publication year, impact factor (IF) of the journals, geographic origins of the first and corresponding authors, and funding status were recorded. Level 1 and Level 2 were defined as high evidence (HE), and Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 were defined as low evidence (LE). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed (α=.05).

RESULTS

Among the 439 studies included in the analysis, the proportion of HE and LE studies was 14.1% and 85.9%, respectively. According to univariate and multivariate analysis results, year of publication (P=.010 and P=.029), geographic origin of the corresponding author (P<.001), and funding status (P<.001 and P=.002) were significantly associated with the LOE of a study. However, the journal IF was not associated with LOE (P=.328).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the number of HE studies in 3 leading prosthodontic journals has increased over time, the total number was still limited compared with LE studies. A further improvement in the overall LOE of clinical studies in prosthodontics is needed.

THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarize the use and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.

METHODS

A manual search was conducted to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related RCTs published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included trial, as well as all outcomes and outcome measures used in these trials independently and in duplicate. Thereafter, the use of dPROs and dPROMs was identified and summarized. We classified all dPROs into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others) and dPROMs into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). We also identified whether these dPROMs assessed 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact).

RESULTS

From 4631 examined articles, a total of 315 RCTs were included, of which 76 (24.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Eight different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients' satisfaction with treatment, difficulty, compliance, preference, efficacy, duration, and unwanted events) and 34 different dPROMs (including 13 single-item questionnaires, 7 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these trials. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (n = 71; 93.4%), followed by patients' satisfaction with treatment (n = 10; 13.2%), patient-reported difficulty (n = 5; 6.6%), and patient-reported compliance (n = 4, 5.3%). The 4 most frequently used dPROMs were pain measured with 10 mm Visual Analogue Scale (n = 20; 24.1%), pain measured with Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11; 13.3%), the Feldmann's Questionnaire (2007) (n = 6; 7.2%), and the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (n = 5; 6.0%).

CONCLUSION

Only about one-fourth of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals can reflect patients' perspectives. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO in these trials. Substantial heterogeneity exists among dPROMs used for OHRQoL assessment. Efforts are needed from researchers, reviewers, editors and other stakeholders to promote the wide and standardized use of dPROs in orthodontic research.

Predictors of societal and professional impact of Endodontology research articles. A multivariate scientometric analysis

AIM

To identify factors that are predictive of short-term professional and societal impact of research within the specialty of Endodontology, and to identify the top-10 articles that achieved the greatest societal impact and describe their characteristics.

METHODOLOGY

Research articles in the field of Endodontology published in 2019 were eligible for inclusion, with the sample identified using Medline. Following screening of titles and abstracts, bibliometric data of the identified articles were exported into a spreadsheet, where further data related to continental origin, type of article, type of journal (endodontic or non-endodontic) and grant-funding were collated, with additional data concerning presence of journal impact factor, citations, news mentions and Altmetric-tracked-mentions and scores compiled using Clarivate, Scopus, ProQuest and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and un/adjusted negative binomial regression models (P<0.05).

RESULTS

The search retrieved 30,443 articles; 951 were included for analysis. Most articles originated from Asia (43.2%) with over 51.5% of articles published in endodontic journals and 80% published in a journal with an impact factor. Over three-quarters of articles were primary research, 141 were grant-funded, 165 had a news mention, 338 achieved an Altmetric Attention Score and 808 were cited. The five-highest ranked articles were mentioned in general news bulletins, five of the top-10 articles were primary research and six of the top-10 were published in endodontic journals. The highest Altmetric Attention Score and citation count were 100 and 87, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that the type of article, publication in a journal with an impact factor, absence of grant-funding and coverage within general news bulletins predicted the Altmetric Attention Scores (P<0.001). Article type, publication in an impact-factor journal and presence of an Altmetric Attention Score were predictive of citations (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Article type and publication in a journal with an impact factor were significant predictors of both societal and professional impact of research articles within Endodontology in the short-term. Non grant-funded research and coverage in general news bulletins achieved greater societal impact, whereas an article achieving an Altmetric Attention Score was also strongly related to professional impact.

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008-2018

OBJECTIVES

To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects.

RESULTS

A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.