Odontogenic sinusitis publication trends from 1990 to 2019: a systematic review
Recommended Citation
Goyal VK, Spillinger A, Peterson EI, and Craig JR. Odontogenic sinusitis publication trends from 1990 to 2019: a systematic review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-20-2021
Publication Title
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology
Abstract
PURPOSE: Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is underrepresented in the literature compared to other forms of rhinosinusitis, specifically in sinusitis guidelines and position statements. ODS publication characteristics could help explain why ODS has received less attention in sinusitis guidelines and position statements. The purpose of this study was to explore trends in the quantity and quality of ODS studies over 3 decades from 1990 to 2019.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify all ODS studies from 1990 to 2019. The following variables from all ODS studies were compared between and across the 3 decades: authors' specialties, journal specialties, authors' geographic origins (continents), study topics, study designs, and evidence levels.
RESULTS: From 1990 to 2019, there were 254 ODS studies that met inclusion criteria. Numbers of publications increased each decade, with 161 being published from 2010 to 2019. Otolaryngologists and dental authors published over 75% of ODS studies each decade, with 60-75% of ODS articles being published in otolaryngology or dental journals. European and Asian authors published the most ODS studies each decade. Overall, 92-100% of ODS publications per decade were level 4 and 5 evidence, with no significant changes between or across decades.
CONCLUSION: While numbers of ODS publications increased each decade from 1990 to 2019, evidence levels remained low without significant changes over time. Otolaryngologists and dental authors published the majority of ODS studies each decade, with a minority of these studies being multidisciplinary. More ODS studies are needed across all aspects of the condition, and future projects would benefit from improved study designs and multidisciplinary collaboration.
PubMed ID
33609178
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
