Is Pediatric Dentistry a Topic of Interest for Pediatric Journals? A Scoping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cagetti MG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8467268 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the pattern of instructions regarding the ethical requirements given to authors in various Pediatric Dental Journals.Material & methodsA cross-sectional survey of 'instructions for authors,' for analysis of guidelines on ethical processes, was done. Instructions to authors in journals of pediatric dentistry across the globe were reviewed for guidelines with regards to fourteen key ethical issues. Descriptive statistics were used, and results were expressed in percentages as well as numbers.ResultsOf the 18journals of pediatric dentistry, all 14 ethical issues were covered by the instructions to authors in only three journals with only 50% of these providing clarity about authorship using ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, COI declaration was found to be present as mandatory in about 44% of the journals. 38.9% of the sampled journals mentioned guidelines on research misconduct, publication issues such as plagiarism, overlapping/fragmented publications, and availability of raw research data from authors. Guidelines on handling of complaints about editorial team was provided to authors by slightly over 33% of the selected pediatric dentistry titles while handling of complaints about authors and reviewers were mentioned in 16.7%and 55.6% of the journals respectively.ConclusionA significant proportion of Journals of Pediatric Dentistry did not provide adequate instructions to authors regarding ethical issues.
| S-EPMC8769321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, it remains unclear which specific peptides could be appropriate for applications in different fields of dentistry. The aim of this scoping review was to scan the contemporary scientific papers related to the types, uses and applications of peptides in dentistry at the moment. Literature database searches were performed in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scielo. A total of 133 articles involving the use of peptides in dentistry-related applications were included. The studies involved experimental designs in animals, microorganisms, or cells; clinical trials were also identified within this review. Most of the applications of peptides included caries management, implant osseointegration, guided tissue regeneration, vital pulp therapy, antimicrobial activity, enamel remineralization, periodontal therapy, the surface modification of tooth implants, and the modification of other restorative materials such as dental adhesives and denture base resins. The in vitro and in vivo studies included in this review suggested that peptides may have beneficial effects for treating early carious lesions, promoting cell adhesion, enhancing the adhesion strength of dental implants, and in tissue engineering as healthy promotors of the periodontium and antimicrobial agents. The lack of clinical trials should be highlighted, leaving a wide space available for the investigation of peptides in dentistry.
| S-EPMC9952573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The effects of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and their impact on future research in pediatric dentistry has not been clearly evaluated yet. Aim. To assess the relevance and role of case reports in pediatric dentistry. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108621) of all case reports published between 2011 and 2012 in the three major pediatric dentistry journals was performed manually. Data regarding citations of each report were acquired from the Institute for Scientific Information database available online. The authors analyzed information regarding citations (number, percentage, and mean) received by each case report and considered their relation with the 2013 journal impact factor. Results: Case reports accounted for almost sixteen per cent of all articles published between 2011 and 2012. The citation rate of case reports was generally low and the highest mean citation was 0.5. This review revealed that 6 (9.52%) case reports had at least 5 citations and that the majority of the citing articles were also case reports (27.78%) or narrative reviews (25%). Conclusions: The publication of case reports affected the journal impact factor in a negative way, this influence is closely related to the percentage of the published case reports. Case reports about innovative topics, describing rare diseases, syndromes, and pathologies were more frequently cited.
| S-EPMC6960525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScholarly journals play a key role in the dissemination of research findings. However, little focus is given to the process of establishing new, credible journals and the obstacles faced in achieving this. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing recommendations for starting a biomedical scholarly journal.MethodsWe searched five bibliographic databases: OVID Medline + Medline in Process, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 14, 2022. A related grey literature search was conducted on March 19, 2022. Eligible sources were those published in English in any year, of any format, and that described guidance for starting a biomedical journal. Titles and abstracts of obtained sources were screened. We extracted descriptive characteristics including author name, year and country of publication, journal name, and source type, and any recommendations from the included sources discussing guidance for starting a biomedical journal. These recommendations were categorized and thematically grouped.ResultsA total of 5626 unique sources were obtained. Thirty-three sources met our inclusion criteria. Most sources were blog posts (10/33; 30.30%), and only 10 sources were supported by evidence. We extracted 51 unique recommendations from these 33 sources, which we thematically classified into nine themes which were: journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting/typesetting, production, archiving/indexing/metrics, marketing/promotion, and funding.ConclusionsThere is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal. The development of an evidence-based guideline may help uphold scholarly publishing quality, provide insight into obstacles new journals will face, and equip novice publishers with the tools to meet best practices.
| S-EPMC10065279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwareness of patients' innovative capabilities is increasing, but there is limited knowledge regarding the extent and nature of patient-driven innovations in the peer-reviewed literature.ObjectivesThe objective of the review was to answer the question: what is the nature and extent of patient-driven innovations published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?Eligibility criteriaWe used a broad definition of innovation to allow for a comprehensive review of different types of innovations and a narrow definition of 'patient driven' to focus on the role of patients and/or family caregivers. The search was limited to years 2008-2020.Sources of evidenceFour electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO (Ovid) and Cinahl (Ebsco)) were searched in December 2020 for publications describing patient-driven innovations and complemented with snowball strategies.Charting methodsData from the included articles were extracted and categorised inductively.ResultsA total of 96 articles on 20 patient-driven innovations were included. The number of publications increased over time, with 69% of the articles published between 2016 and 2020. Author affiliations were exclusively in high income countries with 56% of first authors in North America and 36% in European countries. Among the 20 innovations reported, 'Do-It-Yourself Artificial Pancreas System' and the online health network 'PatientsLikeMe', were the subject of half of the articles.ConclusionsPeer-reviewed publications on patient-driven innovations are increasing and we see an important opportunity for researchers and clinicians to support patient innovators' research while being mindful of taking over the work of the innovators themselves.
| S-EPMC8788234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Almost all medical journals now require authors to publicly disclose conflicts of interests (COI). The same standard and scrutiny is rarely employed for the editors of the journals although COI may affect editorial decisions.We conducted a retrospective observational study to determine the prevalence and magnitude of financial relationships among editors of 60 influential US medical journals (10 each for internal medicine and five subspecialties: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, dermatology and allergy & immunology). Open Payments database was reviewed to determine the percentage of physician editors receiving payments and the nature and amount of these payments.703 unique physician editors were included in our analysis. 320/703 (46%) received 8659 general payments totaling $8,120,562. The median number of payments per editor was 9 (IQR 3-26) and the median amount per payment was $91 (IQR $21-441). The median total payment received by each editor in one year was $4,364 (IQR $319-23,143). 152 (48%) editors received payments more than $5,000 in a year, a threshold considered significant by the National Institutes of Health. COI policies for editors were available for 34/60 (57%) journals but only 7/34 (21%) publicly reported the disclosures and only 2 (3.%) reported the dollar amount received.A significant number of editors of internal medicine and subspecialty medical journals have financial COI and very few are publicly disclosed. Specialty journal editors have more COI compared to general medicine journal editors. Current policies for disclosing COI for editors are inconsistent and do not comply with the recommended standards.
| S-EPMC5959187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLack of consensus regarding the semantics and definitions of pediatric polypharmacy challenges researchers and clinicians alike. We conducted a scoping review to describe definitions and terminology of pediatric polypharmacy.MethodsMedline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched for English language articles with the concepts of "polypharmacy" and "children". Data were extracted about study characteristics, polypharmacy terms and definitions from qualifying studies, and were synthesized by disease conditions.ResultsOut of 4,398 titles, we included 363 studies: 324 (89%) provided numeric definitions, 131 (36%) specified duration of polypharmacy, and 162 (45%) explicitly defined it. Over 81% (n = 295) of the studies defined polypharmacy as two or more medications or therapeutic classes. The most common comprehensive definitions of pediatric polypharmacy included: two or more concurrent medications for ≥1 day (n = 41), two or more concurrent medications for ≥31 days (n = 15), and two or more sequential medications over one year (n = 12). Commonly used terms included polypharmacy, polytherapy, combination pharmacotherapy, average number, and concomitant medications. The term polypharmacy was more common in psychiatry literature while epilepsy literature favored the term polytherapy.ConclusionsTwo or more concurrent medications, without duration, for ≥1 day, ≥31 days, or sequentially for one year were the most common definitions of pediatric polypharmacy. We recommend that pediatric polypharmacy studies specify the number of medications or therapeutic classes, if they are concurrent or sequential, and the duration of medications. We propose defining pediatric polypharmacy as "the prescription or consumption of two or more distinct medications for at least one day". The term "polypharmacy" should be included among key words and definitions in manuscripts.
| S-EPMC6264483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cognitive tele-assessment (CTA) adoption has increased considerably recently, in parallel with the maturation of the digital technologies that enable it, and the push to move assessment to the online format during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. This mode of assessment stems from remote assessment applications that originated in general tele-medicine, where it was typically used for patient screening as part of an intervention. The development of remote tele-medicine was later adapted for CTA in adult populations in tele-neuropsychiatry and tele-psychology and is increasingly applied in experimental research in cognitive science research with adult and pediatric populations, and for remote academic assessment. Compared to in-person assessment, CTA offers advantages such as decreasing time and logistic costs and facilitating the assessment of remote or special needs populations. However, given the novelty of CTA, its technical, methodological, and ethical issues remain poorly understood, especially in cases where methods for assessment of adults are used in pediatric populations. In the current paper, we provide a scoping review on the evolution of remote tele-assessment from the years 2000 to 2021, to identify its main themes, methodologies, and applications, and then focus on the issues of assessment in pediatric populations. Finally, we present recommendations on how to address the challenges previously mentioned.
| S-EPMC10754967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Personalized Oral Healthcare has recently become the new trend word in medicine and dentistry. In this context, saliva diagnostics using various biomarkers seem to be the gateway to personalized dental diagnostics and therapy. But the terminology is not (yet) uniformly defined, furthermore it is unclear to what extent which salivary markers play a relevant role in the therapeutic decision making. In this Scoping Review, an electronic search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science databases using medical subject headings (MESH terms) "saliva", "biomarker", "personality/persons", and "dentistry". Only human studies were included, in which repeated salivary measurements were performed to analyze monitoring effects with at least ten patients per group. PRISMA-ScR and Tricco guidelines were followed: (i) to examine what salivary biomarkers have been explored in terms of personalized oral healthcare and precision dentistry, (ii) to investigate the clinical relevance for oral health and its correlation to systemic health, and (iii) to summarize an outlook for future developments based on these results. Out of 899 studies, a total of 57 were included for data extraction in this Scoping Review, mainly focusing on periodontal therapy and patient monitoring. Salivary biomarkers have shown the potential to change the field of dentistry in all dental disciplines as a key for personalized workflows. The increasing interest in dental research is obvious, demonstrated by the growing number of publications in recent years. At this time, however, the predominant discipline is periodontology, which allows biomarker-based monitoring of the disease prevention and progression. The studies included showed heterogeneous methods using manifolds biomarkers. Therefore, no uniformly accepted concept can be presented today. Further clinical research with well-defined outcomes including standardized procedures is necessary.
| S-EPMC9632857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers. METHODS:We will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and subsequently adapted by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the 'Population-Concept-Context' framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research.
| S-EPMC5665269 | biostudies-other