Research transparency in dental research : A programmatic analysis

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Oral Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Division of the International Association for Dental Research.We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal- and article-related information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Transparency of COVID-19-related research : A meta-research study

Funding Information: The computational analyses were performed on servers provided by UEF Bioinformatics Center, University of Eastern Finland, Finland. Uribe was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 grant 857287 for the Baltic Biomaterials Centre of Excellence, Headquarters at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia and the Uzn¸ēmuma MikroTik līgumam Nr. UL8, 2021 RSU (toward implementing the RSU data repository and the FAIR data management principles). Raittio was supported by the Finnish Dental Society Apollonia and the Aarhus University Research Foundation (#AUFF-E 2019-7-3). Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Sofi-Mahmudi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the adherence to five transparency practices (data availability, code availability, protocol registration and conflicts of interest (COI), and funding disclosures) from open access Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related articles. METHODS: We searched and exported all open access COVID-19-related articles from PubMed-indexed journals in the Europe PubMed Central database published from January 2020 to June 9, 2022. With a validated and automated tool, we detected transparent practices of three paper types: research articles, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and reviews. Basic journal- and article-related information were retrieved from the database. We used R for the descriptive analyses. RESULTS: The total number of articles was 258,678, of which we were able to retrieve full texts of 186,157 (72%) articles from the database Over half of the papers (55.7%, n = 103,732) were research articles, 10.9% (n = 20,229) were review articles, and less than one percent (n = 1,202) were RCTs. Approximately nine-tenths of articles (in all three paper types) had a statement to disclose COI. Funding disclosure (83.9%, confidence interval (CI): 81.7-85.8 95%) and protocol registration (53.5%, 95% CI: 50.7-56.3) were more frequent in RCTs than in reviews or research articles. Reviews shared data (2.5%, 95% CI: 2.3-2.8) and code (0.4%, 95% CI: 0.4-0.5) less frequently than RCTs or research articles. Articles published in 2022 had the highest adherence to all five transparency practices. Most of the reviews (62%) and research articles (58%) adhered to two transparency practices, whereas almost half of the RCTs (47%) adhered to three practices. There were journal- and publisher-related differences in all five practices, and articles that did not adhere to transparency practices were more likely published in lowest impact journals and were less likely cited. CONCLUSION: While most articles were freely available and had a COI disclosure, adherence to other transparent practices was far from acceptable. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to protocol registration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Dental Research Data Availability and Quality According to the FAIR Principles

Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by MikroTik-RSU to S.E. Uribe (toward implementing the RSU data repository and the FAIR data management principles). S.E. Uribe also acknowledges financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant 857287). Publisher Copyright: © International Association for Dental Research and American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research 2022.According to the FAIR principles, data produced by scientific research should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable—for instance, to be used in machine learning algorithms. However, to date, there is no estimate of the quantity or quality of dental research data evaluated via the FAIR principles. We aimed to determine the availability of open data in dental research and to assess compliance with the FAIR principles (or FAIRness) of shared dental research data. We downloaded all available articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals from 2016 to 2021 as open access from Europe PubMed Central. In addition, we took a random sample of 500 dental articles that were not open access through Europe PubMed Central. We assessed data sharing in the articles and compliance of shared data to the FAIR principles programmatically. Results showed that of 7,509 investigated articles, 112 (1.5%) shared data. The average (SD) level of compliance with the FAIR metrics was 32.6% (31.9%). The average for each metric was as follows: findability, 3.4 (2.7) of 7; accessibility, 1.0 (1.0) of 3; interoperability, 1.1 (1.2) of 4; and reusability, 2.4 (2.6) of 10. No considerable changes in data sharing or quality of shared data occurred over the years. Our findings indicated that dental researchers rarely shared data, and when they did share, the FAIR quality was suboptimal. Machine learning algorithms could understand 1% of available dental research data. These undermine the reproducibility of dental research and hinder gaining the knowledge that can be gleaned from machine learning algorithms and applications.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Association of service use with subjective oral health indicators in a freedom of choice pilot

Objectives: A freedom of choice pilot provided access to private oral health care services without queuing and with fixed public service-fees for participants in Tampere region, Finland in 2018-2019. The aim of this study was to investigate how use of oral health care services differed by demographics, socioeconomic status, dental fear, and self-reported oral health in this pilot.Material and methods: SMS-messages including a link to online questionnaire were sent to participants who had booked an appointment, and to those who had not booked an appointment despite registering to pilot. We categorized participants to (1) those who had booked their first appointment before receiving SMS (visitors), (2) those who booked an appointment after receiving the SMS-message (late-visitors), and (3) those who had not booked an appointment during pilot (nonvisitors). We used regression analysis to estimate the association of age, gender, dental fear, economic situation, Oral Health Impact Profile-14-severity (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL]), self-reported oral health and need for oral health care (exposures) with oral health care service use during the pilot (outcome).Results: Out of 2300 participants, 636 (28%) responded. Late-visitors were more likely older and reported more likely need for oral health care, poorer oral health and OHRQoL than visitors or nonvisitors. Nonvisitors were younger and had better OHRQoL than the others. The differences in the service use by gender, economic situation, and dental fear were small.Conclusions: Service use during the pilot depended on the subjective oral health. Our findings highlight the potential of reminders in increasing care use among those with perceived need for services.</p

Association of service use with subjective oral health indicators in a freedom of choice pilot

Objectives: A freedom of choice pilot provided access to private oral health care services without queuing and with fixed public service-fees for participants in Tampere region, Finland in 2018–2019. The aim of this study was to investigate how use of oral health care services differed by demographics, socioeconomic status, dental fear, and self-reported oral health in this pilot. Material and methods: SMS-messages including a link to online questionnaire were sent to participants who had booked an appointment, and to those who had not booked an appointment despite registering to pilot. We categorized participants to (1) those who had booked their first appointment before receiving SMS (visitors), (2) those who booked an appointment after receiving the SMS-message (late-visitors), and (3) those who had not booked an appointment during pilot (nonvisitors). We used regression analysis to estimate the association of age, gender, dental fear, economic situation, Oral Health Impact Profile-14-severity (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL]), self-reported oral health and need for oral health care (exposures) with oral health care service use during the pilot (outcome). Results: Out of 2300 participants, 636 (28%) responded. Late-visitors were more likely older and reported more likely need for oral health care, poorer oral health and OHRQoL than visitors or nonvisitors. Nonvisitors were younger and had better OHRQoL than the others. The differences in the service use by gender, economic situation, and dental fear were small. Conclusions: Service use during the pilot depended on the subjective oral health. Our findings highlight the potential of reminders in increasing care use among those with perceived need for services.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.Peer reviewe

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.Peer reviewe

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research : a systematic scoping review

Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. Registration: OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Statements considering intervention effects in Finnish clinical practice guidelines : Recommending interventions with non-numeric effect-sizes or unspecified outcomes

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Representation of benefits and harms associated with specific interventions in an understandable and comparable way is crucial for informed decision making that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to enhance. Therefore, we investigated how statements concerning the effects of interventions considered and described benefits and harms, magnitude of effect and its uncertainty, numeric and non-numeric information, and outcomes in Finnish CPGs. Methods: We selected 10 CPGs on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society, Duodecim. All the statements which were graded with the level of evidence from high to very low (levels A-D) were included in analyses. From these statements, assessments were made regarding whether the statement considered benefits or harms, whether relative or absolute numeric measures were shown, whether the statement supported or was against the intervention considered, and what outcome was reported. Results: Of the 10 CPGs, 448 statements were assessed. Most of the statements of effects considered intervention benefits (87%) rather than harms. Half of the statements considering harms were represented in a way that supported the intervention. Most of the statements (94%) did not include numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect. When numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect were present, they were most frequently relative measures and were typically placed in a statement considering (a) intervention benefits with a primary outcome, (b) given the grade of A for level of evidence, and (c) that supported the use of intervention. Conclusions. In the Finnish CPGs, the statements were rarely framed with both absolute and relative numeric measures of an intervention's effect. Harms were rarely reported with a grade indicating the level of evidence. The users of CPGs would benefit from more consistent and understandable framing of statements considering both benefits and harms of interventions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe