IADR Abstract Archives
Corresponding authors response rate to emails in systematic reviews focusing on dental implants: a cross-sectional study.
Objectives: To eliminate reporting bias in systematic review (SRs), Corresponding authors (CAs) should contact the authors of the included studies to obtain additional information and eliminate reporting bias. This step is required by PRISMA guidelines, however, not all CAs report it. Recently, SRs focusing on dental implants have been frequently published and cited by many journals and articles. Therefore, this cross- sectional study aims to evaluate the response rate of SRs’ corresponding authors to short emails, focusing on the published SRs in implants dentistry. It also aims to assess the prevalence of CAs that contacted the studies included in their SRs.
Methods: Search was done in PubMed and Scopus up to (11/11/2022). Only SRs written in English language and assessing implant parameter in clinical studies will be included. Journal and CAs metrics will be extracted from the retrieved SRs. Emails will be sent to the CAs of the retrieved SRs. Response rate, time took to send the email, responding time, and the response type will also be assessed.
Results: 1163 SRs were included, but only 133 emails were sent until now, 55 were personal emails, 62 university emails, and 16 were emails from other sources. Among them only 19 responded (17%), and 23 (17%) were invalid. Average time for writing and sending an email was 1.5 minutes (±1-2mins). Average time for CAs to respond was 1.7 days (±1-8 days). Out of the 19 who responded, only 12 of the CAs did send emails to the authors in their included studies.
Conclusions: From the preliminary data provided, seeking further information to eliminate bias by email can only take 1.5 minutes per email. CAs of SRs related to implant dentistry showed low response rate.
Methods: Search was done in PubMed and Scopus up to (11/11/2022). Only SRs written in English language and assessing implant parameter in clinical studies will be included. Journal and CAs metrics will be extracted from the retrieved SRs. Emails will be sent to the CAs of the retrieved SRs. Response rate, time took to send the email, responding time, and the response type will also be assessed.
Results: 1163 SRs were included, but only 133 emails were sent until now, 55 were personal emails, 62 university emails, and 16 were emails from other sources. Among them only 19 responded (17%), and 23 (17%) were invalid. Average time for writing and sending an email was 1.5 minutes (±1-2mins). Average time for CAs to respond was 1.7 days (±1-8 days). Out of the 19 who responded, only 12 of the CAs did send emails to the authors in their included studies.
Conclusions: From the preliminary data provided, seeking further information to eliminate bias by email can only take 1.5 minutes per email. CAs of SRs related to implant dentistry showed low response rate.