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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate, retrospectively, the quality of previously published case reports in Endodontics according to the PRICE 2020 guidelines. METHODOLOGY: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed database on 12 March 2020, to identify case reports published during the last five years in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics. For each of the included case reports, information regarding fulfilment of each of the items of the PRICE 2020 guidelines was extracted as '0' (not present in the manuscript), '1' (present in the manuscript) and 'NA' (not applicable) and translated into a score (percentage of items fulfilled). Additionally, the percentage of papers fulfilling each item was calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 70 endodontic case reports were identified. The scores of the papers ranged between 56.41% and 79.55%, with a mean score of 70.26 ± 4.36% (SD). The percentage of papers fulfilling each item of the applicable PRICE 2020 items ranged widely, between 0% and 100%. The median of the percentage of all the items (n = 47) was 97.01% and mean 73.33 ± 36.28% (SD). The lowest scores were recorded for specific items in the following domains: 'Case Report Information'-Items 6c, 6g-i, 'Patient Perspective'-Item 8a and 'Quality of Images'-Items 12c-d. CONCLUSIONS: Several areas with low reporting rates were identified in case reports published over the last 5 years in Endodontics. Authors should be encouraged to follow the PRICE 2020 guidelines in order to increase the quality and improve reproducibility of their case reports.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.195 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".