A systematic appraisal of the Evidence-Based Dentistry Journal.

Abstract

BackgroundThis systematic appraisal was conducted to determine if the Evidence-Based Dentistry Journal (EBDJ) acts as a reliable and contemporary source of knowledge for practitioners across all disciplines within dentistry.ObjectivesThe main objectives were to determine i) the year the articles were published and included in the EBDJ; ii) if the articles published covered all fields equally within dentistry; iii) the type of study design of the articles reported in the journal and; iv) the level of expertise of the writers of the commentaries.MethodsThis study used a systematic approach to assess the articles included in the journal. Data were extracted on the difference in the year the article was originally published and the year the article was included in the EBDJ, the number of articles in each dental discipline, the type of study designs included in the journal and the expertise of the commentators of each article. The information provided by the journal was validated by accessing the original articles through electronic databases.ResultsThe appraisal considered the 582 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 45.3% of the articles were included in the EBDJ in the same year and 44.8% of the articles were included a year after they were originally published. The number of articles varied across disciplines within dentistry: 23.7% from dental public health, 18.4% from periodontology and 11.8% from orthodontics, with only 4.6% from prosthodontics, 1% from oral pathology and 0.5% from dental materials. Most of the articles were systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials at 72% and 22.3% respectively. The writers of the commentaries were mostly academics and hospital consultants (71.2% and 13.6% commentators).ConclusionsOn the whole, it can be concluded that the journal acts as a reliable and contemporary source of knowledge/evidence for dentists, however, not all specialities within dentistry had equal coverage.