Methodological quality of clinical research in endodontics: A cross-sectional comparison between open access and traditional subscription-based journals

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing provides the benefits of increased visibility, accessibility, and impact of research findings. Despite the rapidly growing number of OA journals in dentistry, there are rising concerns about their quality. Our aim is to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical endodontic studies published in OA journals and to compare them to traditional subscription (TS) journals from January 2010 to December 2022. Materials and Methods: Clinical endodontic studies published in four journals, two from OA and two from TS categories were included in this review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies instrument for nonrandomized studies. Data were analyzed with SPSS, utilizing independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for statistical comparisons. Results: A total of 80 articles were included, 40 from each OA and TS journals. The majority of research articles originated from Asia (48.7%) and were primarily focused on endodontic outcomes (47.5%). A significant difference in methodological quality was noted between TS and OA journals (t-test, P = 0.022). TS journals exhibited a higher mean methodological quality score of 1.64 (±0.30) compared to 1.49 (±0.27) of OA journals. Variance in methodological quality scores among journals was also statistically significant (ANOVA, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Clinical studies published in TS journals had higher methodological quality compared to those published in OA journals. Enhancements in peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in OA publications in endodontics.