RESUMEN
All articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 1999 and December 2009 were classified by study design and evaluated to find the evidence base in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Those in related specialties, and the impact factor of related dental journals were also compared. From a total of 3294 articles (1715 (52%) BJOMS; and 1579 (48%) IJOMS) most of the studies were observational or descriptive (36% BJOMS; and 31% IJOMS). Review articles constituted 5% in the British Journal and 6% in the International Journal. Analytical (non-controlled) studies made up 6% and 7% of the studies in the British Journal and the International Journal, respectively. There were 28 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (2%) in the British Journal and 40 (3%) in the International Journal. One meta-analysis was recorded in the International Journal, and one closed loop audit was recorded in the British Journal. Forty percent of the papers in both journals were non-clinical, scientific, or animal studies. The number of RCTs published in OMFS is low and is comparable with the related specialties of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) (1%) and plastic surgery (4%). Greater effort is required to carry out quality research if we are to provide the best possible evidence to patients for our interventions.
Asunto(s)
Bibliometría , Odontología Basada en la Evidencia , Cirugía Bucal , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados como Asunto , Estudios Transversales , Investigación Dental/clasificación , Humanos , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Proyectos de Investigación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Literatura de Revisión como AsuntoRESUMEN
There is a perception amongst health care professional that patients under-report their smoking habits. The aim of this study was to validate self-reported smoking habits in patients who have been treated for an oral cancer using saliva cotinine. In a cross-sectional study100 consecutive patients attending a maxillofacial oncology clinic completed a smoking related questionnaire following which a saliva sample was obtained. Saliva cotinine levels were determined by gas-liquid chromatography. The mean (SD) age 61 (11), 74% male, 26% female. The majority (79%) had Stage I/II disease, which were treated by surgery (49%), radiotherapy (14%) or combined therapy (37%). Average time (SD) since diagnosis was 28 (24) months. 42% were self-reported smokers. Cotinine assessment was possible from 91 patients. Of these 43% (39/91) were smokers by self-report, all were biochemically smokers (cotinine level>14 microg/l). 9.6% (5/52) patients who claimed to be non-smokers by self-report had cotinine levels suggesting recent active smoking. The level of agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.89), and specificity and sensitivity high (1 and 0.90, respectively). Self-reported smoking habits are reasonably accurate in this group of patients. We believe that smoking related research using self-report alone can reliably be carried out in this particular patient group.