• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估牙科学专业期刊中的发表偏倚。

Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals.

机构信息

Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece.

出版信息

J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2010 Dec;10(4):207-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.09.014.

DOI:10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.09.014
PMID:21093801
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results).

METHODS

The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables).

RESULTS

A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在探讨发表偏倚(接受表明具有统计学意义的结果的文章)的存在。

方法

纳入每个牙科专业领域中具有最高影响因子(2008 年数据)的期刊。对每个期刊最近的 6 期内容进行手工检索,并将研究文章分为 4 种类型:横断面研究、病例对照研究、队列研究和干预研究(非随机临床试验和随机对照试验)。共纳入 396 篇文章进行分析。采用描述性统计和单变量及多变量逻辑回归来检验文章报告的统计学意义(因变量)与期刊影响因子和文章研究类型主题领域(自变量)之间的关联。

结果

发现阳性结果的接受率具有统计学意义,范围为 75%至 90%,而影响因子值与主要牙科期刊中的发表偏倚无关。与其他研究设计相比,临床干预研究(随机或非随机)呈现出最高比例的无显著性发现(20%);RCT 占检查研究的 6%。

结论

与《临床牙周病学杂志》相比,除《口腔颌面外科学杂志》外,所有其他亚专业期刊发表 RCT 的可能性均显著降低,范围为 60%至 93%(P<.05)。

相似文献

1
Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals.评估牙科学专业期刊中的发表偏倚。
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2010 Dec;10(4):207-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.09.014.
2
Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals.对尼古丁替代疗法试验的引用偏向于积极结果和高影响因子期刊。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):831-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.015. Epub 2009 Jan 6.
3
Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?报告显著结果的研究更有可能被发表吗?
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Nov;136(5):632.e1-5; discussion 632-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.024.
4
The value of lesser-impact-factor surgical journals as a source of negative and inconclusive outcomes reporting.低影响因子的外科期刊作为负面和不确定结果报告源的价值。
Ann Surg. 2011 Mar;253(3):619-23. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820d9b04.
5
Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: study from highest ranked journals.临床试验注册对随机试验报告质量的影响:来自排名最高的期刊的研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1216-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.013. Epub 2010 Apr 28.
6
Subspecialty impact factors: the contribution of pediatric anesthesia and pain articles.亚专业影响因素:儿科麻醉与疼痛文章的贡献
Anesth Analg. 2009 Jan;108(1):105-10. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818f0e89.
7
Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology.阴性结果与影响因子:来自新生儿学的教训
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005 Nov;159(11):1036-7. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1036.
8
Multi-authors' self-citation: a further impact factor bias?多位作者的自引:另一种影响因子偏差?
Cortex. 2008 Oct;44(9):1139-45. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.07.001. Epub 2008 Jul 6.
9
Will publication bias vanish in the age of online journals?在在线期刊时代,发表偏倚会消失吗?
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1992 Jul 8;Doc No 12:[1337 words; 10 paragraphs].
10
Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high-impact factor journals.从随机试验中获得的感知信息增益与在高影响力因子期刊上发表的内容相关。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1274-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.009. Epub 2012 Sep 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.与口腔健康期刊中无统计学意义的估计相比,具有统计学显著效果估计的研究更频繁地发表。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Jan 9;23(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01795-3.
2
The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review.系统评价和荟萃分析中护理干预慢性阻塞性肺疾病的报告和方法学质量 - 系统评价。
Nurs Open. 2021 May;8(3):1489-1500. doi: 10.1002/nop2.767. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
3
Do dental research journals publish only positive results? A retrospective assessment of publication bias.
牙科研究期刊是否只发表阳性结果?对发表偏倚的回顾性评估。
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018 Jul-Aug;22(4):294-297. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_60_18.
4
Endodontic epidemiology.牙髓病流行病学
Iran Endod J. 2014 Spring;9(2):98-108. Epub 2014 Mar 8.
5
Assessing small study effects and publication bias in orthodontic meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.评估正畸荟萃分析中的小研究效应和发表偏倚:一项元流行病学研究。
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 May;18(4):1031-1044. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1196-3. Epub 2014 Feb 14.