Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Jul;40(5):274-81.
doi: 10.1259/dmfr/81879482.

Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996-2005

I H Kim  1 , M J Patel, S L Hirt, M L Kantor
Affiliations
Review

Clinical research and diagnostic efficacy studies in the oral and maxillofacial radiology literature: 1996-2005

I H Kim et al. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Jul.

Erratum in

  • Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011 Oct;40(7):470

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the level of evidence that is published in the oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMR) literature.

Methods: OMR papers published in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology and Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology between 1996 and 2005 were classified using epidemiological study design and diagnostic efficacy hierarchies. The country of origin and number of authors were noted.

Results: Of the 725 articles, 384 could be classified with the epidemiological study design hierarchy: 155 (40%) case reports/series and 207 (54%) cross-sectional studies. The distribution of study designs was not statistically significant across time (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.06) or regions (P = 0.89). The diagnostic efficacy hierarchy was applicable to 246 articles: 71 (29%) technical efficacy and 166 (67%) diagnostic accuracy studies. The distribution of efficacy levels was not statistically significant across time (P = 0.22) but was significant across regions (P < 0.01). Authors from Japan produced 26% of the papers with a mean ± standard deviation of 5.78 ± 1.98 authors per paper (APP); American authors, 23% (3.78 ± 1.72 APP); and all others, 51% (3.76 ± 1.51 APP).

Conclusion: The OMR literature consisted mostly of case reports/series, cross-sectional, technical efficacy and diagnostic accuracy studies. Such studies do not provide strong evidence for clinical decision making nor do they address the impact of diagnostic imaging on patient care. More studies at the higher end of the study design and efficacy hierarchies are needed in order to make wise choices regarding clinical decisions and resource allocations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of “evidence-based” papers in the dental literature published annually (bars) and cumulatively (line) since 1994. Data were obtained from PubMed (www.pubmed.gov) using the following search strategy: evidence-based (all fields). Search was limited to English-language dental journals
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total number of papers published between 1996 and 2005 by country of origin (n = 725)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Number of papers published per biennium by region (n = 725)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Thier SO. Dental education in the future. J Dent Educ 1991;55:353–355 - PubMed
    1. Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics. XLIV. A survey of the research architecture used for publications in general medicine journals. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1978;24:117–125 - PubMed
    1. Stephenson JM, Babiker A. Overview of study design in clinical epidemiology. Sex Transm Infect 2000;76:244–247 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hayes C. Evidence based dentistry: design architecture. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:51–59 - PubMed
    1. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:527–529 - PMC - PubMed