Uncertainty Bounds in Clinical Trials Published in Endodontic Journals within the Last 5 Years: Are We Confident on What We Read?

Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence reporting confidence intervals (CIs) in clinical trials endodontics and discover any further associations with a range publication characteristics. Methods electronic contents 3 leading endodontic journals highest impact factors (International Endodontic Journal, Journal Endodontics, Australian Journal) were assessed from January 2016 December 2020. number proportion CIs for difference effectiveness/safety competing interventions outcome interest recorded. Associations journal, year publication, design, use analyses more complex sets data, others assessed. Univariable multivariable logistic regressions used identify significant predictor variables. Yearly linear trend effects also sought. Results A total 141 reports identified. majority published Endodontics (90/141, 63.8%) followed by International (41/141, 29.1%). CI confirmed only 29.1% sample (41/141). There strong evidence that including data presented 11.47 times higher odds (adjusted ratio = 11.47; 95% CI, 4.19–31.41; P < .001). Conclusions inclusion uncertainty measures as represented is suboptimal within trial reports.