龋齿随机临床试验是否采用了开放科学实践?

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Jaisson Cenci, Bruna Brondani, Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio Cenci, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes
{"title":"龋齿随机临床试验是否采用了开放科学实践?","authors":"Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Jaisson Cenci, Bruna Brondani, Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio Cenci, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes","doi":"10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Open Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from January 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these articles to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the articles. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the \"Instructions for Authors\" section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>64.8% of the articles (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3-70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the articles. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few articles adopted other practices. Older articles presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and articles published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.</p>","PeriodicalId":9072,"journal":{"name":"BMC Oral Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"1431"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11585932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?\",\"authors\":\"Carolina de Picoli Acosta, Jaisson Cenci, Bruna Brondani, Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio Cenci, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Open Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from January 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these articles to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the articles. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the \\\"Instructions for Authors\\\" section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>64.8% of the articles (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3-70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the articles. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few articles adopted other practices. Older articles presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and articles published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1431\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11585932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Oral Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05218-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在评估随机临床试验(RCT)的研究完整性和质量时,开放科学实践(OSP)至关重要。由于龋齿对口腔健康造成了重大负担,我们的目标是确定并分析在以解决这种疾病为重点的 RCT 中采用开放科学实践的情况:我们在 PubMed 上检索了 2000 年 1 月至 2022 年 3 月期间发表的与龋齿相关的研究性试验。两名独立研究人员对这些文章进行随机抽样评估,以确定其是否符合条件,直至达到最小样本量。然后,这两名研究人员就文章中采用的 OSPs 对收录的文本进行了审查。收集到的与 OSP 相关的变量包括报告指南、方案注册、可获得的详细方法、开源软件、统计分析代码共享、统计分析计划、数据共享、开放同行评审和开放获取。考虑到期刊的出版年份、第一作者所在大陆、影响因子和开放获取政策(解释变量),以及至少采用一种开放源码软件或一种开放获取以外的开放源码软件(结果),我们使用逻辑回归进行了关联分析。通过审查收录论文的最常用期刊的 "作者须知 "部分,评估了采用开放获取门户的建议:64.8%的文章(95% 置信区间 = 59.3-70.1%)至少采用了一种开放源码软件。但是,没有一篇文章采用的 OSP 超过 50%。采用最多的做法是方案注册(37.1%)、使用报告指南(33.1%)和出版开放存取(37.3%)。这些也是期刊在 "作者须知 "中最常推荐的 OSP。少数文章采用了其他做法。篇幅较长的文章采用这些方法的频率较低,而发表在影响因子较高期刊上的文章与这两项结果均呈正相关:结论:已发表的有关龋齿的 RCT 研究表明,采用大多数 OSP 的频率较低。然而,近年来采用这些方法的趋势明显增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science practices?

Background: Open Science Practices (OSPs) are essential when assessing research integrity and quality of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). As dental caries represents a significant oral health burden, our objective was to identify and analyse the adoption of OSPs within RCTs focused on addressing this disease.

Methods: We searched PubMed to retrieve RCTs related to dental caries published from January 2000 to March 2022. Two independent researchers assessed a random sample of these articles to evaluate their eligibility until reaching the minimum sample size. Then, the same examiners reviewed the included texts regarding the OSPs adopted in the articles. The collected variables related to OSPs were reporting guidelines, protocol registration, detailed methodology available, open-source software, statistical analysis code sharing, statistical analysis plan, data sharing, open peer review, and open access. Association analyses using logistic regression were conducted considering the publication year, the continent of the first author, impact factor and open-access policy of the journals (explanatory variables), and adoption of at least one OSP or one OSP other than open access (outcomes). The recommendations for adopting OSPs were assessed by reviewing the "Instructions for Authors" section of the most frequently used journals where the included papers were published.

Results: 64.8% of the articles (95% Confidence Interval = 59.3-70.1%) adopted at least one OSP. However, no individual OSP was adopted by more than 50% of the articles. The most adopted practices were protocol registration (37.1%), the use of reporting guidelines (33.1%) and publishing open access (37.3%). These are also the OSPs most often recommended by journals in the Instructions for Authors. A few articles adopted other practices. Older articles presented a lower frequency of adopting these practices, and articles published in higher impact factor journals were positively associated with both outcomes.

Conclusion: The RCTs published on dental caries demonstrate a low frequency of adoption of most OSPs. However, a trend toward increased adoption of these practices has been notable in recent years.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Oral Health
BMC Oral Health DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
481
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Oral Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of disorders of the mouth, teeth and gums, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信