Cardiff University School of Dentistry, Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales CF14 4XY, UK.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2013 Sep;13(3):78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2013.06.001.
Dental professionals are constantly exposed to advertisements in the dental literature. These promote products, either for use in the operatory or to recommend to patients. In an era of evidence-based practice, what references are provided to support claims made by the advertisers?
This study aimed to determine if advertisements in four major dental journals, whose target audience is general dental practitioners, were supported by an appropriate evidence-base, readily accessible to readers.
The 2010 printed volumes of the Australian Dental Journal, British Dental Journal, Dental Update and the Journal of the American Dental Association were hand searched to identify advertisements which made a claim of clinical benefit or superiority to competing products. Advertisements were categorized according to type of product being promoted and the availability, nature and number of any supporting references was recorded. Repeated advertisements were analyzed only once.
A total of 390 advertisements were identified and 369 made a claim of benefit or superiority. When the 222 duplicates of the same advertisement were removed, 147 unique advertisements remained. Of these: 54 (37%) were advertisements related to dental devices for in-surgery use; 44 (30%) for dental materials, and 27 (18%) for dentifrices/medicaments. 113 (76.9%) advertisements offered no evidential support for claims made. Of the 34 advertisements that provided evidential support, only 20 provided a complete reference that could readily be sourced by an interested reader: 15 articles in refereed journals; 5 data on file; 3 in-house studies and combinations thereof. Four references were not accessible due to incomplete referencing. Two advertisements provided evidence that was not relevant to the product being advertised.
The majority of advertisements in the dental literature do not provide an adequate evidence-base, readily available to readers, to support the claims being made. If evidence-based practice is to be encouraged, greater emphasis on scientific referencing in advertisements is required.
本研究旨在确定四大牙科期刊（目标读者为普通牙医）中的广告是否有适当的证据支持，并且这些证据是否易于读者获取。
手工检索澳大利亚牙科杂志、英国牙科杂志、牙科更新和美国牙科协会杂志 2010 年印刷卷，以识别声称具有临床益处或优于竞争产品的广告。根据推广产品的类型对广告进行分类，并记录任何支持性参考文献的可用性、性质和数量。重复广告仅分析一次。
共发现 390 则广告，其中 369 则声称具有益处或优越性。去除相同广告的 222 个副本后，仍有 147 个独特的广告。其中：54 个（37%）为手术中使用的牙科器械广告；44 个（30%）为牙科材料广告，27 个（18%）为牙膏/药物广告。113 个（76.9%）广告未提供声称的证据支持。在提供证据支持的 34 个广告中，只有 20 个提供了完整的参考文献，读者可以轻松获取：15 篇在同行评议期刊上发表的文章；5 份文件资料；3 项内部研究及其组合。由于引用不完整，4 个参考文献无法获取。两个广告提供的证据与广告宣传的产品无关。
牙科文献中的大多数广告都没有为读者提供足够的证据支持声称，并且这些证据也不容易获取。如果要鼓励基于证据的实践，广告中需要更加重视科学引用。
