Improving the design, execution, reporting and clinical translation of laboratory‐based studies in Endodontology

Laboratory-based studies make up the majority of articles published in all leading endodontic journals. The global investment in time and resources in laboratory-based unpublished research in Endodontology is brought into sharp focus when one considers these same journals reject the majority of manuscripts based on research undertaken in the laboratory, over 85% in some cases. It could be claimed that academic freedom is eroded with the introduction of and imposition of publication rules, such as additional standards, guidelines, compliance barriers, ethical reviews, government and institutional policies, laws, and even author publishing guidelines for laboratory-based studies. Because researchers have accepted more and more regulations, without much defence of their academic freedom, it is possible that academia has passed the breaking point of being over-regulated. On the other hand, if laboratory-based research is inconsequential to clinical endodontic practice, because it never translates into any benefits for clinicians and patients, then academic freedom is not worth protecting, because the dangers of over-regulation do not seem to matter and frankly are not worth fighting against. We have to mourn the decline of academic/research freedom, with the hope that new research guidelines for laboratory-based studies will deliver improved safety, ethics, fairness, accountability, accuracy, validity, comparability, reproducibility and translation to clinical practice. Researchers and clinicians working in the field of Endodontology by their very nature are intelligent, independent, bold, resourceful, and very likely overworked, underfunded and underpaid. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the majority of research in Endodontology begins and ends within a laboratory, meaning that after all the time and effort producing laboratory results, those results will never benefit a single patient who is given endodontic therapy, or indeed any dental treatment. Our professional research duty is to stop ignoring poor design, faulty execution, imprecise reporting and unclear clinical translation that laboratory-based studies have with endodontic clinical practice. This is the correct time to reconsider how effectively laboratory-based research is undertaken and how it translates to clinical practice, so that clinicians and patients will benefit. Up to now, the multitude of available guidelines and standards appear to have failed to correct this serious problem. Action must be taken to stop the waste of precious time and limited resources on nonpublishable and inferior quality nontranslational research. Towards this mammoth task to help begin improving the overall standard and clinical translation of laboratory-based endodontic studies, we have proposed new standards: Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE).