Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): guiding authors to identify and correct reporting deficiencies in their manuscripts prior to peer review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Adhering to evidence-informed endodontics can help meet the needs of patients and their preferences, by integrating the clinical expertise of dentists with the most up-to-date and highest quality research and clinical evidence. Prior to publication, research and clinical reports must be peer-reviewed to ensure that they are of high quality, well-planned, accurate, reproducible, unbiased, ethical and safe so that they can contribute to evidence-based decisions in clinical practice. The task of peer-reviewing publications requires a substantial number of unpaid hours by dedicated reviewers and editors, who have to follow established author guidelines and review criteria within the scope of the respective journals. Likewise, researchers and clinicians in all likelihood spend a significant amount of time and financial resources in preparing manuscripts, which may unfortunately never be published due to deficiencies identified through peer review. Generally, researchers appear to be unaware of deficiencies in their manuscripts until they receive the comments of the editor and referees following the rejection of their article. Guidelines for ensuring the highest quality of reporting before manuscripts are submitted for publication are essential to help authors identify manuscript deficiencies that require improvement prior to peer review. Guidelines also ensure that the designs of future research projects continue to improve by including and considering from the outset the specific standards established for each item within the guidelines. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) is a new online web-based resource that has been developed to increase awareness of the importance of high standards of reporting research and clinical reports in the specialty. The PRIDE team will develop and maintain an extensive library that provides a collection of reporting guidelines in the field of Endodontology. All the guidelines and the related supporting materials will be freely accessible in the PRIDE website at www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. Over time, each guideline will be translated into multiple languages to broaden the reach of this initiative. Academics, researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers, practitioners and others are encouraged to provide feedback/comments on the guidelines through the PRIDE website (contact@pride-endodonticguidelines.org), in order to help the project leaders evaluate and update the guidelines when necessary. PRIDE has been created by its project leaders (PD, VN) after they identified the need to guide researchers and clinicians to identify deficiencies in manuscripts prior to their submission to journals and before the peer-review process. The initial versions of each reporting guidelines were created by steering committees prior to their further development using a familiar pathway for developing reporting guidelines that complies with recommendations from the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (Moher et al. 2010). Each steering committee will form a Delphi Group and Face-to-face Meeting Group comprising a diverse range of experts from around the world who will participate in the consensus process for the development of each specific guideline. The Pygmalion effect or Rosenthal effect is the phenomenon whereby others' expectations of a target person affect the target person's performance (Mitchell & Daniels 2003). The Pygmalion effect can be applied here as ‘the quality of a manuscript submitted for publication will rise to the level of the peer-reviewer’s expectations, or it will fail to be accepted for publication’. The reporting guidelines are intended to help researchers design studies and prepare manuscripts for publication in the anticipation that this will improve their quality to the level expected by peer reviewers and editors. Ultimately, the achievement of better quality research and clinical publications will benefit dentists as they strive to provide evidence-based endodontic therapies with an ultimate aim of enhancing the care and well-being of patients and their overall quality of life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,324 | 0,843 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».