Insights and networks: methodological assessment and scientometric analysis of economic evaluations in dentistry.

INTRODUCTION

Assessing the methodological quality of economic evaluations (EEs) is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. The study aimed to evaluate EEs in restorative dentistry and endodontics, while also analyzing the scientific landscape of researchers and publications through co-authorship and citation network analysis providing an insight into the distribution of scientific expertise.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic search for relevant articles from 2012 to 2022 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. The ten-point Drummond checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of included studies. Bibliometric data for network analysis were extracted from the Dimensions database and visualized using VOSviewer software.

RESULTS

Of the 37 articles, 81.08% scored good, 16.21% average, and 2.7% poor on the methodological rating scale. Most of the included studies were in Q1 journals, with limited representation in Q2 and Q3 journals. Compliance was highest in Q2 journals (95%), followed by Q1 (88.36%), while it dropped to 40% for Q3 journals. Co-authorship analysis revealed a dense network of researchers, with Prof. Falk Schwendicke V. having a significant influence. Moreover, the Journal of Dentistry had the highest impact, followed by Journal of Endodontics and BMC Oral Health.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a diverse scientific landscape, participation from developing countries was limited emphasizing the need for inclusivity and diversity in the scientific network. While the quantity of good-quality studies was encouraging, the overall quality of evidence remains paramount for decision-making in healthcare policy and practice. Therefore, continuous efforts to improve methodological rigor and reporting practices are essential to contribute robust evidence.