Sir, the main goal of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is to integrate the most up-to-date and reliable scientific evidence with dentists' clinical expertise, to drive up standards of care.1 Recently, numerous studies have published questionable findings,2,3,4 including an overwhelming number of COVID-19 clinical trials without adequate methodological rigour and design. This is contrary to the principles of EBD.1,5

Such occurrences raise the notion of a well-known phenomenon in medical sciences: 'research waste'.4 Dentistry is no exception, where it has been recognised by many.5 Despite previous attempts to enhance the quality of dental evidence, several questions with significant clinical relevance remain unanswered.5,6 Encouraging dental researchers to work on COVID-19 ultimately reduces the availability of resources, infrastructure and time to conduct 'normal' research on non-COVID-19-related topics. This distraction from finding answers for key dental questions may prove critically detrimental to the progression of dental sciences.

In the current COVID-19-focused research climate, we recommend that the following criteria be considered by funding bodies and publishers when reviewing papers in the dental sciences to prevent further research waste:

  • Any COVID-19 paper should aim to assess or measure an outcome directly or indirectly altered by the COVID-19 pandemic or its ramifications

  • Random and unsubstantiated citations or stating difficulties levied upon the research team by the pandemic that do not directly or indirectly change the outcomes of interest, should not warrant the paper to be classified as COVID-19-related

  • Papers solely presenting a descriptive account of COVID-19 burdens (including mortality, non-lethal clinical side effects, or altered quality of life) should not warrant a COVID-19 classification, unless they aid in supporting the results or message of a wider COVID-19-related paper

  • Major revisions from the initial drafts for submission, including any public preprints or journal-exclusive documents (especially additional COVID-19-related sections) should be critically reviewed with extra scrutiny

  • Predatory invitations to write COVID-19 papers to help journals in filling gaps in their upcoming issues should be proactively discouraged and penalised

  • The publication of non-COVID-19 papers should not be trivialised by intentionally postponing their publication date in preference of a COVID-19 paper.

Editor-in-Chief's note: Readers may wish additionally to refer to EBD content including special issues on coronavirus: https://www.nature.com/ebd and the coronavirus collection: https://www.nature.com/collections/jhcagbcgje.