Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials

• Published in: BMC medical research methodology Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 185 - 8
• Main Authors: Prado, Mayara Colpo, Dotto, Lara, Agostini, Bernardo, Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 24.08.2024; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Biomedical research; Citations; Clinical trials; Conflict of Interest; Conflicts of interest; Dentistry; Dentistry - methods; Dentistry - standards; Evaluation; Funding; Humans; Impact factors; Information Dissemination - methods; Information sharing; Management; Medical care; Meta-research; Open access; Quality management; Randomized controlled trial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Registration; Research Design - standards; Research report; Software; Brazil; Meta-research; Research report; Dentistry; Randomized controlled trial
• ISSN: 1471-2288; 1471-2288
• DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02316-0

To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty. A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability. Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code.