Showing papers by "Clovis Mariano Faggion published in 2021"
TL;DR: The authors in this article performed a search of the PubMed database for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019 to provide an overview of meta-research in dentistry, and found that the most prevalent areas of interest were meta-Research areas were the'methods' and'reporting' areas with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively.
Abstract: The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta-research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta-research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta-research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta-research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta-research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta-research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the difference in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of metaanalysis was found to indicate potential novelty bias, which may indicate the novelty bias.
Abstract: Differences in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of meta-analysis might indicate potential novelty bias. The objective of this study ...
4 citations
3 citations
TL;DR: The present study found that some specific characteristics such as distorted images and grammatical errors are more prominent in PP dental journals than in presumed predatory journals.
2 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it, and replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment performed by two reviewers independently.
Abstract: Background To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. Methods Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. Results We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. Conclusion Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.
1 citations