PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines are based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, with the addition of items specifically related to endodontics. The use of the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines by authors and their application by journals during the peer review process will reduce the possibility of bias and enhance the quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies. The PRIDASE 2024 guidelines consist of a checklist containing 11 domains and 66 individual items. The purpose of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item on the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, along with examples from the literature to help readers understand their importance and offer advice to those developing manuscripts. A link to the PRIDASE 2024 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/pridase/) and on the International Endodontic Journal website (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652591/homepage/pride-guidelines.htm).

EQUATOR Network Mapping Review for Dysphagia Research

PURPOSE

The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative aimed at improving published health research through use of reporting guidelines. We conducted a review to determine the extent to which EQUATOR Network guidelines contain recommendations relevant for dysphagia research in human subjects.

METHOD

We downloaded all 542 EQUATOR Network guidelines on November 8, 2022. Each guideline was reviewed by two independent raters and judged for relevance to dysphagia and related fields (e.g., otolaryngology, gastroenterology). Dysphagia-relevant guidelines pertaining to quantitative human subjects research were further inspected to identify reporting guidance regarding (a) general research elements (e.g., data collection, statistical methods), (b) participant characteristics (e.g., demographics, accrual, randomization), (c) screening and clinical/noninstrumental assessments, (d) videofluoroscopic examinations, (e) flexible endoscopic examinations, (f) other instrumentation in swallowing research, (g) dysphagia treatment, (h) patient-/care provider-reported outcome measures, and (i) any other narrowly specified focus relevant for research on swallowing. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Of 542 guidelines, 156 addressed quantitative research in human subjects relevant to dysphagia. Of these, 104 addressed general research elements and 108 addressed participant characteristics. Only 14 guidelines partially addressed the other topics of interest, and none addressed elements relevant to reporting videofluoroscopic or endoscopic assessments of swallowing.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to find guidelines with specific relevance to reporting key methods in dysphagia research. This lack of guidance illustrates a gap that hinders the critical appraisal of research quality in the field of dysphagia. Our review highlights the need to develop dysphagia-specific tools for critical appraisal and guidance regarding adequate research reporting.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25014017.

PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: A consensus-based development

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors.

The Oral Health Statistics Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistics Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to task force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the task force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in Journal of Dental Research Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: explanation and elaboration

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

The OHStat Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

Comparison of Efficacy of Lidocaine and Articaine as Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocking Agents in Patients with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives: Lidocaine Hydrochloride has been the standard choice for local anesthesia in dentistry and Articaine's unique structure and growing popularity make it a viable alternative. Due to contradictory results in prior research and a scarcity of trials conducted in the Pakistani population, this study aims to compare the anesthetic efficacy of Lidocaine with Articaine for inferior alveolar nerve blocks in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 152 patients who were selected by consecutive non-probability sampling. The participants included patients who presented with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in mandibular posterior teeth (molars and premolars) and depicted normal apical tissue radiographically. The patients were equally and randomly divided into two groups. The control group received 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injections, and the experiment group received 4% Articaine Hydrochloride injections. Participants scored their pain on the HP-VAS both before and after the administration of anesthesia. A value of 54 mm or less on the scale indicated effective anesthesia. The data obtained were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square test was applied to analyze data for statistical significance. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of the two anesthetic agents. During access cavity preparation, Lidocaine demonstrated a success rate of 93%, whereas Articaine exhibited a slightly higher success rate of 97%. During initial instrumentation, the success rates for Lidocaine and Articaine were 72% and 71%, respectively. This suggests that both Lidocaine and Articaine were effective in achieving anesthesia during the dental procedure in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with Articaine showing a slightly better success rate, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The anesthetic efficacy of Articaine is similar to that of lidocaine in subjects with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Hence, Articaine can serve as an alternative to Lidocaine for local anesthesia administration in dentistry.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of case reports focusing on dental traumatology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics 2020 checklist: A baseline evaluation prior to checklist publication

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines were published to help authors produce high-quality case reports. The aim of this study was to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines to appraise a sample of 50 case reports related to dental traumatology that were published before the guidelines were available in order to assess various parameters influencing the reporting quality.

METHODS

Fifty case reports published between 2015 and 2019 and related to dental traumatology were randomly selected from the PubMed database. Reports were assessed by two independent evaluators using the PRICE checklist. Each item received a score of "1" if the manuscript met all pertinent criteria, "0" if it was not reported, and "0.5" if it was reported insufficiently. "Not Applicable" (NA) was assigned to items that were irrelevant to a specific report. The estimated total PRICE score for each case report was computed by adding all the scores, with a maximum score of 47 minus any "NA" scores. Descriptive and Inferential statistics (Student's t-test and ANOVA) were used for analysis.

RESULTS

The percentage of case reports that fully met each applicable criteria ranged from 0% to 100%. The percentage of case reports partially satisfying each applicable criterion varied from 0% to 88%. There was a significant difference in scores for case reports published in journals with an impact factor compared with those without (p = .042). No significant difference was observed between the mean scores that compared the period of publication. There was no significant difference between journals that followed the CARE guidelines and those that did not.

CONCLUSION

Several items within the PRICE 2020 guidelines were either not reported or only partially reported in case reports related to dental traumatology prior to the checklist publication. It is recommended that authors follow the PRICE 2020 guidelines to improve the overall quality of their case reports.

Efficacy of imaging techniques for the diagnosis of apical periodontitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Apical periodontitis (AP) is a chronic inflammatory response of microbial aetiology. Pathological changes associated with AP may not be visible on radiographic images and may linger without causing any symptoms. Clinicians rely mostly on clinical examination and imaging techniques to establish a diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to answer the following question using the PICO format: In the adult human permanent dentition (P), what is the efficacy of diagnostic imaging of the periapical tissues (I) using histopathology as a reference standard (C) in the diagnosis of apical periodontitis, in terms of diagnostic accuracy (O).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for English articles published through October 2021. At least two independent reviewers evaluated the study design, imaging modality used, histopathological assessment, outcome measures, results and conclusions for each article. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

RESULTS

The initial search strategy identified 544 articles. Seven articles were included for analysis in the final review, all of which involved tissue samples obtained from cadavers. No clinical studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria. A consistently low sensitivity score and negative predictive value were reported for periapical radiography, especially in comparison to CBCT, which scored highly. Both modalities achieved high scores for specificity and positive predictive value. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was lower for root-filled teeth in comparison to non-root-filled teeth.

DISCUSSION

Assessment of the periapical tissues using periapical radiographs was shown to have a low to moderate agreement with the histopathological assessment. CBCT was reported to be more accurate than PR and demonstrated a good agreement with histopathology, especially for non-root-filled teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a need for greater standardization in methodology and reporting, and as the findings are based on cadaver studies, their clinical relevance must be interpreted with caution.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021272147).

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of animal studies within the field of endodontics against the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 checklist and to investigate the association between the quality of reporting and several characteristics of the selected studies.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty animal studies related to endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database with publication dates from January 2017 to December 2021. For each study, a score of '1' was given when the item of the PRIASE 2021 checklist was fully reported, whereas a score of '0' was given when an item was not reported; when the item was inadequately or partially reported, a score of '0.5' was given. Based on the overall scores allocated to each manuscript, they were allocated into three categories of reporting quality: low, moderate and high. Associations between study characteristics and reporting quality scores were also analysed. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to describe the data and determine associations. The probability value of .05 was selected as the level of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, four (8%) and 46 (92%) of the animal studies evaluated were categorized as 'High' and 'Moderate' reporting quality, respectively. A number of items were adequately reported in all studies related to background (Item 4a), relevance of methods/results (7a) and interpretation of images (11e), whereas only one item related to changes in protocol (6d) was not reported in any. No associations were confirmed between reporting quality scores and number of authors, origin of the corresponding author, journal of publication (endodontic specialty vs. non- specialty), impact factor or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Animal studies published in the specialty of endodontics were mostly of 'moderate' quality in terms of the quality of reporting. Adherence to the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will enhance the reporting of animal studies in the expectation that all future publications will be high quality.

The Impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 Guidelines on the Reporting of Endodontic Case Reports

Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guideline on the reporting of published endodontic case reports (CRs). Methodology All case reports published in the International Endodontic Journal, European Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, in the year before and after the release of PRICE 2020, were included for analysis. Two panels comprising dentists scored case reports against a scoring system adapted from the guideline. Individual items were scored up to a maximum of 1; scores were then summated to provide an overall maximum of 47 for each CR. Each report provided an overall percentage adherence, and panel agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Disagreement on scoring was discussed until a consensus was reached. Scores before and after PRICE guideline publication were compared using an unpaired two-tailed t test. Results A total 19 CRs were identified in both the pre- and post-PRICE guideline publication. Mean adherence to PRICE 2020 increased by 7.9% (p=0.003) from 70.0%±8.89 to 77.9%±6.23 following its publication. Agreement between panels was moderate (ICC pre-PRICE: 0.673 {p=0.011}; ICC post-PRICE: 0.742 {p=0.003}). Items 1a, 6c, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6j, 6q, 6s, 7a, 9a, 11a, 12c and 12d experienced a fall in compliance. Conclusion The PRICE 2020 guideline has resulted in a modest improvement in the reporting of endodontic case reports. Greater awareness and a wider acceptance and implementation of the guideline in endodontic journals are needed to improve adherence to the novel guideline.

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in Endodontics: A consensus-based development study

Observational studies are non-interventional studies that establish the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations or analyse the relationship between health status and other variables. They also facilitate the development of specific research questions for future randomized trials or to answer important scientific questions when trials are not possible to carry out. This article outlines the previously documented consensus-based approach by which the Preferred Reporting items for Observational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023 guidelines were developed. A steering committee of nine members was formed, including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding several new items specifically for the specialty of Endodontics. The steering committee then established a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG) and a PROBE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to obtain expert input and feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. The PDG members participated in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items present in the PROBE checklist. The POMG then held detailed discussions on the PROBE checklist generated through the online Delphi process. This online meeting was held via the Zoom platform on 7th October 2022. Following this meeting, the steering committee revised the PROBE checklist, which was piloted by several authors when preparing a manuscript describing an observational study for publication. The PROBE 2023 checklist consists of 11 sections and 58 items. Authors are now encouraged to adopt the PROBE 2023 guidelines, which will improve the overall reporting quality of observational studies in Endodontics. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely available and can be downloaded from the PRIDE website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

Does MTA provide a more favourable histological response than other materials in the repair of furcal perforations? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on which furcal perforation repair material induces a more favourable histological response. This systematic review of laboratory studies provides an overview of the studies comparing repair materials in animal models.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) yields a more favourable histological response than other materials when used to repair furcal perforations in animal experimental models.

METHODS

This review followed the PRISMA checklist. The studies included various materials used to repair furcal perforations and compared the histological responses with MTA. An electronic search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science up to 2 September 2020, with no language or publication date restrictions. Studies whose full text was unavailable were excluded. The ARRIVE and SYRCLE tools were used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of the studies.

RESULTS

The studies included in the qualitative synthesis were conducted in rat (n = 3) and dog (n = 17) models. They were classified as having a low quality, high methodological heterogeneity and high RoB. MTA and Biodentine, the materials most often compared, reduced the inflammatory reaction to mild over time. In addition, a mineralized tissue was formed in all studies. The response yielded by MTA was better than or equivalent to that of the other tested materials.

DISCUSSION

This review confirmed that MTA is the reference standard material for furcal perforation repair. However, research using animal models has inherent limitations, and the substantial methodological heterogeneity across the studies included should be considered. Therefore, the knowledge generated by this systematic review should be translated into clinical practice cautiously.

CONCLUSIONS

Features described in the report and quality assessment guidelines, such as PRIASE, ARRIVE and SYRCLE, should guide researchers. Despite the high RoB and the low methodological quality of the studies included, findings indicated that MTA yields a more favourable histological response than other materials in the repair of furcal perforations.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020181297).

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest-quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer-review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory-based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer-reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer-review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart.

PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus-based development

Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer-review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well-documented consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/).

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of '1' was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of '0' was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of '0.5' was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, 'Not Applicable (NA)' was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into 'Low' (0-58.4%), 'Moderate' (58.5-72.8%) and 'High' (72.9-100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi-square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as 'High', 'Moderate' and 'Low' quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored 'NA' in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of 'High'-quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The 'High'-quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more 'High' scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of 'High' scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non-Endodontic specialty) or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high-quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.

Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines: a development protocol

Diagnostic accuracy studies play an important role in informing clinical practice and patient management, by evaluating the ability of diagnostic testing and imaging to identify the presence or absence of a disease or condition. These studies compare the relative diagnostic strength of the test or device with a reference standard, therefore, guiding clinical decisions on the reliability of the test, the need for further tests, and whether to monitor or treat a particular condition. Inadequate and incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies can disguise methodological deficiencies and ultimately result in study bias and the inability to translate research findings into daily clinical practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines are being developed in order to improve the accuracy, transparency, completeness and reproducibility of diagnostic accuracy studies in the speciality of Endodontology. The aim of this paper is to report the process used to develop the PRIDASE guidelines based on a well-established consensus process. The project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee of nine members (PD, VN, PA, AF, DR, SP, CK, MP, HD) to oversee and manage the project. The PRIDASE steering committee will develop the initial draft of the PRIDASE guidelines by adapting and modifying the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines, adding new items related specifically to the nature of Endodontics and incorporate the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The initial guidelines will consist of a series of domains and individual items and will be validated by the members of a PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of a minimum of 30 individuals who will evaluate independently the individual items based on two parameters: 'clarity' using a dichotomous scoring (yes/no) and 'suitability' for inclusion using a 9-point Likert Scale. The scores awarded by each member and any suggestions for improvement will be shared with the PDG to inform an iterative process that will result in a series of items that are clear and suitable for inclusion in the new PRIDASE guidelines. Once the PDG has completed its work, the steering committee will create a PRIDASE Meeting Group (PMG) of 20 individuals from around the world. Members of the PDG will be eligible to be the part of PMG. The draft guidelines and flowchart approved by the PDG will then be presented for further validation and agreement by the PMG. As a result of these discussions, the PRIDASE guidelines will be finalized and then disseminated to relevant stakeholders through publications and via the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org). Periodic updates to the PRIDASE guidelines will be made based on feedback from stakeholders and end-users.

Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): Guiding authors to produce high-quality manuscripts

Implementing evidence-based dentistry involves a systematic process that includes collecting and analyzing evidence to address a clinical question. However, the inadequacy of many manuscripts and the incomplete and often misleading information they provide when published in healthcare journals are of major concern. The literature confirms that reporting guidelines improve the overall completeness and transparency of manuscripts in the field of oral health research. To improve the overall quality and clinical translation of studies in Endodontology, a new suite of guidelines under the umbrella of the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) project has been developed. Under the PRIDE project, five reporting guidelines focusing on specific study designs within the specialty either have or are in the process of being developed: (Case reports: Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE); Randomized clinical trials: Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE); Laboratory studies: Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE); Animal studies: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) and Observational studies: Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE). For each guideline, the project leaders (VN, PD) formed a steering committee made up of experts from across the globe. Each steering committee developed an initial draft checklist containing a list of proposed items related to the specific study design to fit the specialty of Endodontology. In addition, a flowchart to graphically illustrate the process involved in the development of a manuscript was created to accompany each individual guideline. Each steering committee then formed a Delphi panel that included approximately 30 experts from across the globe who commented individually and anonymously upon the items to be included in each checklist and flowchart until a consensus was achieved. The draft checklists and flowcharts were then discussed during face-to-face or online meetings of approximately 20 experts to further debate and refine each guideline, which were then piloted by several authors while writing a manuscript. Eventually, each guideline (checklist and flowchart) will be published along with supporting material as well as being freely accessible on the PRIDE website (www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org). The PRIDE guidelines will help authors produce high-quality manuscripts in the discipline of Endodontology.

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.

Guidelines for reporting randomized controlled trials in paediatric dentistry based on the CONSORT statement

BACKGROUND

The significance of randomized controlled trials (RCT) depends on how thoroughly the results were reported. Reporting of RCTs should be accurate and transparent and encompasses design, implementation, analysis, and results of the trial. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and its extension were developed to guide the researchers to report clinical trials in a systematic manner. Despite this recommendation, the overall reporting quality of RCTs still remains suboptimal.

AIM

To describe the relevance and importance of CONSORT reporting guidelines and explain the items using examples derived from randomized trials published in Paediatric Dentistry.

METHODS

This is a narrative review that illustrates the importance of reporting items in the CONSORT guidelines from relevant sources. RCTs published in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry between 2017 and 2020 were identified from PubMed and Scopus databases and through handsearching. An explanation has been provided for each of the 37 items in the 2010 CONSORT checklist and 17 items in the CONSORT extension for reporting abstracts.

CONCLUSION

This explanation and elaboration document would enable investigators to report trials in Paediatric Dentistry with accuracy and transparency as well as for reviewers and editors in evaluating the suitability of RCTs for publication.

Glossary for randomized clinical trials

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials.

Retrospective evaluation of endodontic case reports published in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics for their compliance with the PRICE 2020 guidelines

AIM

To evaluate, retrospectively, the quality of previously published case reports in Endodontics according to the PRICE 2020 guidelines.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed database on 12 March 2020, to identify case reports published during the last five years in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics. For each of the included case reports, information regarding fulfilment of each of the items of the PRICE 2020 guidelines was extracted as '0' (not present in the manuscript), '1' (present in the manuscript) and 'NA' (not applicable) and translated into a score (percentage of items fulfilled). Additionally, the percentage of papers fulfilling each item was calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 70 endodontic case reports were identified. The scores of the papers ranged between 56.41% and 79.55%, with a mean score of 70.26 ± 4.36% (SD). The percentage of papers fulfilling each item of the applicable PRICE 2020 items ranged widely, between 0% and 100%. The median of the percentage of all the items (n = 47) was 97.01% and mean 73.33 ± 36.28% (SD). The lowest scores were recorded for specific items in the following domains: 'Case Report Information'-Items 6c, 6g-i, 'Patient Perspective'-Item 8a and 'Quality of Images'-Items 12c-d.

CONCLUSIONS

Several areas with low reporting rates were identified in case reports published over the last 5 years in Endodontics. Authors should be encouraged to follow the PRICE 2020 guidelines in order to increase the quality and improve reproducibility of their case reports.

PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration

Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org.

[Histopathological research laboratories in translational research : Conception and integration into the infrastructure of pathological institutes]

A systematic review of histopathology from experimental animal systems is an essential part of up-to-date biomedical research. Pathologists at university hospitals are especially and increasingly challenged by these specialized and time-consuming duties. This article presents and analyzes a new laboratory structure of comparative experimental pathology-jointly lead by veterinary and human pathologists-which might solve this problem. The focus is on the establishment and full integration of this laboratory structure into a local, regional, and nationwide biomedical research cluster. A detailed comparison with an established structure of routine histopathology laboratories discusses merits and benefits as well as disadvantages.

Neurosurgical Flexible Probe Microscopy with Enhanced Architectural and Cytological Detail

BACKGROUND

Microscopic delineation and clearance of tumor cells at neurosurgical excision margins potentially reduce tumor recurrence and increase patient survival. Probe-based in vivo fluorescence microscopy technologies are promising for neurosurgical in vivo microscopy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to demonstrate a flexible fiberoptic epifluorescence microscope capable of enhanced architectural and cytological imaging for in vivo microscopy during neurosurgical procedures.

METHODS

Eighteen specimens were procured from neurosurgical procedures. These specimens were stained with acridine orange and imaged with a 3-dimensional (3D)-printed epifluorescent microscope that incorporates a flexible fiberoptic probe. Still images and video sequence frames were processed using frame alignment, signal projection, and pseudo-coloring, resulting in resolution enhancement and an increased field of view.

RESULTS

Images produced displayed good nuclear contrast and architectural detail. Grade 1 meningiomas demonstrated 3D chords and whorls. Low-grade meningothelial nuclei showed streaming and displayed regularity in size, shape, and distribution. Oligodendrogliomas showed regular round nuclei and a variably staining background. Glioblastomas showed high degrees of nuclear pleomorphism and disarray. Mitoses, vascular proliferation, and necrosis were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate the utility of a 3D-printed, flexible probe microscope for high-resolution microscopic imaging with increased architectural detail. Enhanced in vivo imaging using this device may improve our ability to detect and decrease microscopic tumor burden at excision margins during neurosurgical procedures.

Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.

CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document

BACKGROUND

Well-written and transparent case reports (1) reveal early signals of potential benefits, harms, and information on the use of resources; (2) provide information for clinical research and clinical practice guidelines, and (3) inform medical education. High-quality case reports are more likely when authors follow reporting guidelines. During 2011-2012, a group of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors developed recommendations for the accurate reporting of information in case reports that resulted in the CARE (CAse REport) Statement and Checklist. They were presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, have been endorsed by multiple medical journals, and translated into nine languages.

OBJECTIVES

This explanation and elaboration document has the objective to increase the use and dissemination of the CARE Checklist in writing and publishing case reports.

ARTICLE DESIGN AND SETTING

Each item from the CARE Checklist is explained and accompanied by published examples. The explanations and examples in this document are designed to support the writing of high-quality case reports by authors and their critical appraisal by editors, peer reviewers, and readers.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This article and the 2013 CARE Statement and Checklist, available from the CARE website [www.care-statement.org] and the EQUATOR Network [www.equator-network.org], are resources for improving the completeness and transparency of case reports.

Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA guidelines

Animal models are essential research tools in modern biomedical research, but there are concerns about their lack of reproducibility and the failure of animal data to translate into advances in human medical therapy. A major factor in improving experimental reproducibility is thorough communication of research methodologies. The recently published ARRIVE guidelines outline basic information that should be provided when reporting animal studies. This paper builds on ARRIVE by providing the minimum information needed in reports to allow proper assessment of pathology data gathered from animal tissues. This guidance covers aspects of experimental design, technical procedures, data gathering, analysis, and presentation that are potential sources of variation when creating morphological, immunohistochemical (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) datasets. This reporting framework will maximize the likelihood that pathology data derived from animal experiments can be reproduced by ensuring that sufficient information is available to allow for replication of the methods and facilitate inter-study comparison by identifying potential interpretative confounders.

Differential activation of human constitutive androstane receptor and its SV23 and SV24 splice variants by rilpivirine and etravirine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Rilpivirine and etravirine are second-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. The constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) regulates the expression of genes involved in various biological processes, including the transport and biotransformation of drugs. We investigated the effect of rilpivirine and etravirine on the activity of the wild-type human CAR (hCAR-WT) and its hCAR-SV23 and hCAR-SV24 splice variants, and compared it with first-generation NNRTIs (efavirenz, nevirapine, and delavirdine).

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Receptor activation, ligand-binding domain (LBD) transactivation, and co-activator recruitment were investigated in transiently transfected, NNRTI-treated HepG2 cells. Nuclear translocation of green fluorescent protein-tagged hCAR-WT and CYP2B6 gene expression were assessed in NNRTI-treated human hepatocytes.

KEY RESULTS

Rilpivirine and etravirine activated hCAR-WT, but not hCAR-SV23 or hCAR-SV24, and without transactivating the LBD or recruiting steroid receptor coactivators SRC-1, SRC-2, or SRC-3. Among the first-generation NNRTIs investigated, only efavirenz activated hCAR-WT, hCAR-SV23, and hCAR-SV24, but none of them transactivated the LBD of these receptors or substantively recruited SRC-1, SRC-2, or SRC-3. Rilpivirine, etravirine, and efavirenz triggered nuclear translocation of hCAR-WT and increased hCAR target gene (CYP2B6) expression.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

NNRTIs activate hCAR-WT, hCAR-SV23, and hCAR-SV24 in a drug-specific and isoform-selective manner. The activation occurs by a mechanism that does not appear to involve binding to the LBD or recruitment of SRC-1, SRC-2, or SRC-3.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. These new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is included about whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. These guidelines are also published in: Headache, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. They are also published in Advanced Materials, Headache, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. They are also published in Advanced Materials, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.

Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher's perspective, 2nd edition

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. The new guidelines are also published in Advanced Materials, Headache, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Social Science Quarterly, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines.