Retrospective evaluation of endodontic case reports published in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics for their compliance with the PRICE 2020 guidelines

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of case reports focusing on dental traumatology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics 2020 checklist: A baseline evaluation prior to checklist publication

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines were published to help authors produce high-quality case reports. The aim of this study was to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines to appraise a sample of 50 case reports related to dental traumatology that were published before the guidelines were available in order to assess various parameters influencing the reporting quality.

METHODS

Fifty case reports published between 2015 and 2019 and related to dental traumatology were randomly selected from the PubMed database. Reports were assessed by two independent evaluators using the PRICE checklist. Each item received a score of "1" if the manuscript met all pertinent criteria, "0" if it was not reported, and "0.5" if it was reported insufficiently. "Not Applicable" (NA) was assigned to items that were irrelevant to a specific report. The estimated total PRICE score for each case report was computed by adding all the scores, with a maximum score of 47 minus any "NA" scores. Descriptive and Inferential statistics (Student's t-test and ANOVA) were used for analysis.

RESULTS

The percentage of case reports that fully met each applicable criteria ranged from 0% to 100%. The percentage of case reports partially satisfying each applicable criterion varied from 0% to 88%. There was a significant difference in scores for case reports published in journals with an impact factor compared with those without (p = .042). No significant difference was observed between the mean scores that compared the period of publication. There was no significant difference between journals that followed the CARE guidelines and those that did not.

CONCLUSION

Several items within the PRICE 2020 guidelines were either not reported or only partially reported in case reports related to dental traumatology prior to the checklist publication. It is recommended that authors follow the PRICE 2020 guidelines to improve the overall quality of their case reports.

The Impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 Guidelines on the Reporting of Endodontic Case Reports

Aim The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guideline on the reporting of published endodontic case reports (CRs). Methodology All case reports published in the International Endodontic Journal, European Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, in the year before and after the release of PRICE 2020, were included for analysis. Two panels comprising dentists scored case reports against a scoring system adapted from the guideline. Individual items were scored up to a maximum of 1; scores were then summated to provide an overall maximum of 47 for each CR. Each report provided an overall percentage adherence, and panel agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Disagreement on scoring was discussed until a consensus was reached. Scores before and after PRICE guideline publication were compared using an unpaired two-tailed t test. Results A total 19 CRs were identified in both the pre- and post-PRICE guideline publication. Mean adherence to PRICE 2020 increased by 7.9% (p=0.003) from 70.0%±8.89 to 77.9%±6.23 following its publication. Agreement between panels was moderate (ICC pre-PRICE: 0.673 {p=0.011}; ICC post-PRICE: 0.742 {p=0.003}). Items 1a, 6c, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6j, 6q, 6s, 7a, 9a, 11a, 12c and 12d experienced a fall in compliance. Conclusion The PRICE 2020 guideline has resulted in a modest improvement in the reporting of endodontic case reports. Greater awareness and a wider acceptance and implementation of the guideline in endodontic journals are needed to improve adherence to the novel guideline.

Multidisciplinary Approach for Autotransplantation and Restoration of a Maxillary Premolar into an Area of an Avulsed Anterior Tooth: A Case Report with a 6-Year Follow-up

The loss of an anterior tooth because of avulsion has been reported in up to 3% of dental injuries. Management alternatives, such as implant-supported restorations and a fixed partial denture, are contraindicated in growing patients because of the continuous growth of the alveolar process. At the same time, orthodontic treatment for gap closure will result in asymmetry and will require adjustment of the adjacent healthy teeth. Therefore, restoring a missing tooth imposes a treatment challenge, especially in children and young adults. Tooth autotransplantation is a treatment modality with high reported survival and success rates that overcome these mentioned limitations. It might also help to preserve the alveolar bone and the soft tissues. This case report describes a multidisciplinary approach for managing a 13-year-old boy who lost his right maxillary central incisor because of a fall. Management included autotransplantation of the left maxillary second premolar to the site of the lost right maxillary central incisor, management of external inflammatory resorption with an endodontic treatment, orthodontic treatment, and aesthetic restoration of the area with composite resin crowns that can be adapted to the expected changes of the jaws during the craniofacial growing period. At the 6-year follow-up, the teeth demonstrated a positive outcome.

'CARE compliance' of case reports published in Dental Traumatology in the past two decades: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The journal Dental Traumatology (DT) is one of the best resources in the field of dental traumatology. It has always encouraged publication of case reports of good quality. The CARE statement (2011) was developed for uniform and transparent reporting of cases in medical sciences. Since case reports are inseparable from the DT literature, the aim of this bibliometric-analysis was to evaluate the case reports published in the DT in the last two decades (2001-2021) and assess their compliance regarding CARE guidelines for elucidating the trends in DT and the reporting quality of these papers.

METHODOLOGY

Two authors independently observed the tables of contents in all issues of DT from 2002-2021 and identified case reports. Selected articles were scrutinized to determine their eligibility. Data extraction was performed, case reports were segregated into domains, and their CARE compliance was evaluated by using a self-designed-validated method. Differences between the case reports published in two decades (2002-2011 and 2012-2021) were analysed with the Chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 1612 articles published between February 2002 and October 2021 were scrutinized to identify 357 case reports with 277 from the period of 2002-2011 and 80 between 2012 and 2021. The highest number of case reports originated from Asia (2002-2011:135, 2012-2021:28). The CARE compliances of the majority of reports in the decade of 2002-2011 were between 75 and 85% (good) while the CARE compliances of the majority of reports from 2012-2021 were between 85 and 95% (very good) or >95% (excellent). These differences were statistically significant (p < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of case reports published in the decade of 2002-2011 were more than three times the number of case reports published in the decade of 2012-2021. The highest number of reports in both decades were from Asia and belonged to the therapeutic and prognostic domains. The CARE compliances of the reports in the decade of 2012-2021 were better than those from 2002-2011.