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
. 2025 Jul 1;36(3):256-262.
doi: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_110_24. Epub 2026 Jan 2.

An Assessment of Reproducibility Crisis in Published Randomised Controlled Trials in Oral Health - An Evaluative Study

Nishant Mehta  1 , Arpit Gupta  1 , Diptajit Das  1   2 , Richa Shrivastava  1 , Ashima Goyal  1
Affiliations
Free article

An Assessment of Reproducibility Crisis in Published Randomised Controlled Trials in Oral Health - An Evaluative Study

Nishant Mehta et al. Indian J Dent Res. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: An investigation of current reproducibility trends of published dental research can offer invaluable insights concerning their clarity, comprehensiveness, and replicability.

Aim: To identify the presence of reproducibility crises in oral health research based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and to assess factors contributing to the lack of reproducibility.

Materials and methods: The content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading dental journals was evaluated. Stratified random sampling was employed to select oral health journals based on the 2021 journal citation report (JCR) impact factor listing. Two researchers retrieved RCTs from the last two published issues of the selected journals and appraised them for reproducibility and associated factors.

Results: In the 32 issues of the 16 selected journals, researchers published a total of 68 RCTs. The mean Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier) completion percentage score was 71.85 ± 14.94. Of 68 RCTs, 35 (51.5%) studies were reproducible, and 33 (48.5%) were not reproducible. Studies with a single type of intervention, cross-over designs, and statistically non-significant findings exhibited higher levels of reproducibility ( P < 0.05). Studies involving multiple types of interventions were found to be 9.09 (95% CI: 2.32-35.60) times more likely to be non-reproducible compared to studies with a single type of intervention (reference category).

Conclusion: Oral health RCTs lacked sufficient detailing, thereby decreasing their replicability.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Niven DJ, McCormick TJ, Straus SE, Hemmelgarn BR, Jeffs L, Barnes TRM, et al. Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: A scoping review. BMC Med 2018;16:26.
    1. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001747.
    1. Baker M. First Results from Psychology's Largest Reproducibility Test. Nature 2015.
    1. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 2016;533:452–4.
    1. Duff JM, Leather H, Walden EO, LaPlant KD, George TJ. Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:702–5.

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources