The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles


A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature

Zuhair S Natto, Ahmad Aljehani, Anfal Sarhan, Elaf Nawawi, Hanan Abdullatef, Lina Samarkandi, Maryam Nasser, Rawan Badri, Rufaida Quqandi, Sara Waheeb, Sarah Aljahdali, Yasser Merdad

Keywords : Case controls, Case reports, Clinical trials, Cohort designs, Cross-sectional studies, Dental, Randomized clinical trials, RCTs, Type of articles

Citation Information : Natto ZS, Aljehani A, Sarhan A, Nawawi E, Abdullatef H, Samarkandi L, Nasser M, Badri R, Quqandi R, Waheeb S, Aljahdali S, Merdad Y. A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):867-872.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2613

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aims: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. Materials and methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Clinical significance: 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.

  1. El-Rabbany M, Li S, et al. A Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry, Part 1: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2017;17:389–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.06.004.
  2. Frantsve-Hawley J, Jeske A. The American Dental Association's Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry: a critical resource for 21st century dental practice. Tex Dent J 2011;128:201–205.
  3. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care 2013;2:9–14. DOI: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934.
  4. Kranke P. Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decision-making. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010;27:763–772. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833a560a.
  5. Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs 2003;12:77–84. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00662.x.
  6. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, et al. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123–127. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08468-7.
  7. Egger M, Smith GD, et al. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315:1533–1537. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533.
  8. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, et al. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users’ Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000;284:1290–1296. DOI: 10.1001/jama.284.10.1290.
  9. Liumbruno GM, Velati C, et al. How to write a scientific manuscript for publication. Blood Transfus 2013;11:217–226. DOI: 10.2450/2012. 0247-12.
  10. Brignardello-Petersen R, Carrasco-Labra A, et al. A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: understanding and applying the principles of EBD. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1105–1107. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.102.
  11. Ismail AI, Bader JD. Evidence-based dentistry in clinical practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:78–83. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0024.
  12. Maier RV. What the surgeon of tomorrow needs to know about evidence-based surgery. Arch Surg 2006;141:317–323. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.141.3.317.
  13. Slim K. Limits of evidence-based surgery. World J Surg 2005;29:606–609. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-7922-x.
  14. Hall JC, Mills B, et al. Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 1996;119:466–472. DOI: 10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80149-8.
  15. Hall JC, Hall JL. Randomization in surgical trials. Surgery 2002;132:513–518. DOI: 10.1067/msy.2002.125350.
  16. Chang DC, Matsen SL, et al. Why should surgeons care about clinical research methodology? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:827–830. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.013.
  17. Dimick JB, Diener-West M, et al. Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or error? Arch Surg 2001;136:796–800. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.136.7.796.
  18. Maggard MA, O'Connell JB, et al. Sample size calculations in surgery: are they done correctly? Surgery 2003;134:275–279. DOI: 10.1067/msy.2003.235.
  19. Manterola C, Pineda V, et al. What is the methodologic quality of human therapy studies in ISI surgical publications? Ann Surg 2006;244:827–832. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000242708.51631.66.
  20. Manfredini D, Greene CS, et al. Evidence-based dentistry or meta-analysis illness? A commentary on current publishing trends in the field of temporomandibular disorders and bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 2019;46:1–4.
  21. Activities TACoSE. The American College of Surgeons Educational Activities.
  22. Kurichi JE, Sonnad SS. Statistical methods in the surgical literature. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:476–484. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.018.
  23. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, et al. The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:42. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-42.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.