A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of reports of clinical trials published in six Brazilian dental journals indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)

Journal of Applied Oral Science

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 104-109

  de Souza, Raphael Freitas ^a,b   de Chaves, Carolina Andrade Lima ^c   Nasser, Mona ^d   Fedorowicz, Zbys ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

^d INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^e The Cochrane Collaboration   (Bahrain)

Author keywords

Bias; Clinical trials as topic; Evidence based medicine; Journalism, dental; Randomized controlled trials as topic

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953672506     PISSN: 16787757     EISSN: 16787765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000200002     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Almerie MQ, Matar HE, Jones V, Kumar A, Wright J, Wlostowska E, et al. Searching the Polish Medical Bibliography (Polska Bibliografia Lekarska) for trials. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24:283-6.
2. Altman DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 1996;313:570-1.
3. Bickley SR. Oral Health Review Group Journal Handsearchers' Manual. Manchester: Cochrane Oral Health Group; 2002.
4. Cipriani A, Malvini L, Furukawa TA, Barbui C. Relationship between quality of reports of antidepressant randomized controlled trials and treatment estimates: systematic review, meta-analysis, and metaregression analysis. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;27:352-6.
5. Clancy MJ. Overview of research designs. Emerg Med J. 2002;19:546-9.
6. Doyle H, Gass A, Kennison R. Who pays for open access? PLoS Biol. 2004;2:E105.
7. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76.
8. Frank M. Access to the scientific literature - a difficult balance. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1552-5.
9. Giglia E. Open access in the biomedical field: a unique opportunity for researchers (and research itself). Eura Medicophys. 2007;43:203-13.
10. Gravel J, Opatrny L, Shapiro S. The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say? Clin Trials. 2007;4:350-6.
11. Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomised clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clinical Trials. 2006;3:360-5.
12. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
14. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-6.
15. Muller K, Morais J, Feine J. Nutritional and anthropometric analysis of edentulous patients wearing implant overdentures or conventional dentures. Braz Dent J. 2008;19:145-50.
16. Nasser N, Al-Hajeri A. A comparison of handsearching versus Embase searching of the archives of Iranian medicine to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Iranian Med. 2006;9:192-5.
17. Nasser M, Eisinga A, Al-Hajeri A, Fedorowicz Z. Identifying search terms likely to retrieve reports of randomized trials in Iranmedex - a pilot project. Bahrain Med Bull. 2008;30:119-21.
18. Türp JC, Schulte JM, Antes G. Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002;110:405-11.
19. Warlick SE, Vaughan KT. Factors influencing publication choice: why faculty choose open access. Biomed Digit Libr. 2007;4:1.