Prevalence of Recommendations Made Within Dental Research Articles Using Uncontrolled Intervention or Observational Study Designs

BackgroundEvidence to inform clinical practice is reliant on research carried out using appropriate study design. The objectives of this work were to (i) identify the prevalence of articles reporting on human studies using uncontrolled intervention or observational research designs published in peer-reviewed dental journals and (ii) determine the nature of recommendations made by these articles.MethodsSix peer-reviewed dental journals were selected. Issues published in January to June 2013 were examined and the types of articles published categorized. Following pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, human studies classified as using uncontrolled intervention or observational research designs were subject to detailed review by two independent investigators, to examine if they presented clinical, policy or research recommendations and if these recommendations were supported by the data presented.Results52.9% (n = 156) of studies published during the time period met the inclusion criteria. Studies with uncontrolled intervention or observational research designs comprised a larger proportion of the primary research studies published in the journals with lower impact factors (73.3%; n = 107) compared to the high impact journals (38.9%; n = 49). Analysis showed that 60.9% (n = 95) of the included studies made recommendations for clinical practice/dental policy. In 28.2% (n = 44) of studies, the clinical/policy recommendations made were judged to not be fully supported by the data presented.ConclusionsMany studies published in the current dental literature, which are not considered to produce strong evidence, make recommendations for clinical practice or policy. There were some cases when the recommendations were not fully supported by the data presented.