Natto Zuhair S, Aljehani Ahmad, Sarhan Anfal, Nawawi Elaf, Abdullatef Hanan, Samarkandi Lina, Nasser Maryam, Badri Rawan, Quqandi Rufaida, Waheeb Sara, Aljahdali Sarah, Merdad Yasser
Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Phone: +96 6126943899, e-mail:
SHO General Dentistry, King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Jul 1;20(7):867-872.
This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time.
Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty.
The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall.
Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidence-based dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making.
Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.
本文描述了牙科文献中使用的方法，并阐述了这些方法随时间的变化情况。
分析纳入了33种ISI同行评审期刊。数据由11名研究人员独立提取并重复提取。结果如有任何差异，通过讨论解决，必要时由第三位评审员解决。收集了关于文章中使用的方法以及与不同研究设计相关的牙科专业的数据。如果报告了不止一种研究设计或专业，评审员接受培训以确定主要方法/专业。
大多数（36.96%）使用病例报告（CR）作为主要方法，其次是临床试验（CT）（18.21%）或随机CT（15.11%）。使用最少的方法包括队列研究（COH）（6.07%）或系统评价（SA）/荟萃分析（MA）（6.73%）。牙周病学发表的病例对照（CC）数量最多（46.8%）、随机CT（RCT）数量最多（29.9%）、横断面（CS）研究数量最多（26.0%）、SR/MA数量最多（19.8%）以及CT数量最多（17.1%）。口腔颌面外科发表的CR/病例系列数量最多（54.5%）以及COH研究数量最多（30.5%），而牙体牙髓病学发表的CR/病例系列数量最少（0.7%）、CC数量最少（2.9%）以及SR/MA数量最少（2.3%）。CR/病例系列在牙科文献的所有时间点上发表数量均最多。
我们的结果表明研究类型和证据金字塔有所改善，这将有助于在临床决策中应用循证牙科（EBD）。
牙科领域使用的研究类型尚未得到研究。因此，对于牙科文献中常见的研究设计类型知之甚少。这可能会影响有关技术、危险因素、预防或治疗的决策。
