Hicks Diana, Melkers Michael, Barna Julie, Isett Kimberley R, Gilbert Gregg H
Gen Dent. 2019 May-Jun;67(3):38-46.
Accessible sources of clinical information have proliferated over the past decade. Although these new sources that contextualize information for practice are user friendly, there are questions about their accuracy because much of the material is not peer reviewed. On the other hand, traditional peer-reviewed material can be somewhat removed from the needs of practicing dentists, and recently questions have been raised about the accuracy of journals. This study assessed the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiation safety information in both professional media and peer-reviewed journals. Articles introducing CBCT technology to dentists and published in peer-reviewed journals were compared to articles appearing in professional magazines, clinically oriented news sites, and blogs written by clinicians for clinicians. The reported radiation doses of CBCT and conventional dental radiographs were recorded, as were conclusions about the comparative doses of these 2 imaging modalities. The proportion of articles reporting CBCT dose to be greater than, equal to, or less than that of conventional dental radiographs was not different between the peer-reviewed and professional media articles during the period 2003-2016. There is weak evidence that the conclusions of peer-reviewed journal articles, but not professional media sources, became more conservative after the 2010 publication of an article in The New York Times that was critical of misinformation concerning the safety and efficacy of CBCT in dentistry. Professional media articles that were not peer reviewed were as accurate as peer-reviewed journals for this topic and during the time period assessed. However, the method used here necessitated a narrow focus, and more studies are needed to broaden understanding.
在过去十年中，临床信息的可获取来源激增。尽管这些为实践提供信息背景的新来源对用户很友好，但由于许多材料未经同行评审，其准确性存在疑问。另一方面，传统的同行评审材料可能与执业牙医的需求有些脱节，最近人们对期刊的准确性也提出了质疑。本研究评估了专业媒体和同行评审期刊中锥束计算机断层扫描（CBCT）辐射安全信息的准确性。将发表在同行评审期刊上向牙医介绍CBCT技术的文章与专业杂志、临床导向的新闻网站以及临床医生为同行撰写的博客上出现的文章进行了比较。记录了CBCT和传统牙科X线片报告的辐射剂量，以及关于这两种成像方式相对剂量的结论。在2003年至2016年期间，同行评审文章和专业媒体文章中报告CBCT剂量大于、等于或小于传统牙科X线片剂量的文章比例没有差异。有微弱证据表明，在2010年《纽约时报》发表一篇批评CBCT在牙科安全性和有效性方面错误信息的文章后，同行评审期刊文章（而非专业媒体来源）的结论变得更加保守。在评估的时间段内，对于这个主题，未经同行评审的专业媒体文章与同行评审期刊一样准确。然而，这里使用的方法需要有一个狭窄的重点，需要更多的研究来拓宽认识。
