Showing papers by "Clovis Mariano Faggion published in 2022"
TL;DR: This article provided an update of the certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE rating reported in oral health Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) published between 2003-2021 were sourced and extracted at the level of the CSR and the outcome/meta-analysis.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts, and find that only one of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of submissions to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned).
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 6 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported. The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved.
1 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors investigated whether informed consent and information related to patient recruitment in clinical studies are well reported in the scientific literature, and found that informed consent is severely underreported.
Abstract: Ethical aspects in research should be transparently reported. This study aimed to investigate whether informed consent and information related to patient recruitment in clinical studies are well reported in the scientific literature. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on root coverage procedures published between November 2016 and November 2021 were selected from the PubMed database. Items/questions were used to guide the extraction of data related to patient recruitment, with a focus on the detailed report of informed consent used to clarify the research to the patient. Data were extracted from the published article and the respective research protocol published in a public registry. Information related to potential selective outcome reporting (SOR) was also extracted. In total, 187 documents were initially screened and 74 reports of RCTs were included. No informed consent was published in the article. Only one research protocol provided a link to the informed consent. Deviations from reporting in the research protocol and published article were found, suggesting SOR. Informed consent and information related to patient recruitment in RCTs on root covering procedures are severely underreported. The present findings may stimulate further discussion and debate on the need for making this information publicly available.
1 citations