149 research outputs found
sj-docx-1-joo-10.1177_14653125211034878 – Supplemental material for Orthodontic clinicians’ attitudes and knowledge of dentogingival aesthetics: A cross-sectional survey of BOS members
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-joo-10.1177_14653125211034878 for Orthodontic clinicians’ attitudes and knowledge of dentogingival aesthetics: A cross-sectional survey of BOS members by Eman Ajrash, Andrew T DiBiase, Nikolaos Pandis, Martyn T Cobourne and Jadbinder Seehra in Journal of Orthodontics</p
Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals.
No full textOBJECTIVES
To assess the extent to which reports of dental Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were explored.
METHODS
An electronic database search was undertaken to identify dental RCTs published between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were calculated for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.
RESULTS
682 RCTs were analysed. 312 SRs were available of which 62.5 % were cited and 37.5 % were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. An association between inclusion of SR and trial registration (P = 0.046) was detected. For the inclusion of a SR, authors based in Asia or other had lower odds than those based in Europe (OR: 0.53; 95 % CI:0.34,0.82; p = 0.005). Every unit increase in journal impact factor increased the odds of SR inclusion (OR: 1.23; 95 %: 1.06, 1.43; p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS
A relatively high proportion of dental RCTs (37.5 %) did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. Trials conducted by a corresponding author based in Europe and published in journals with an increasing impact factor were also more likely to cite a SR.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Further progress is required to minimise research waste and ensure resources are channelled towards clinically useful trials which have an appropriate rationale and justification
Common errors in randomized controlled trials submitted for publication to the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.
No full textThe consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) guidelines have been drafted to facilitate accurate and transparent trial reporting and implicitly guide researchers to follow a good methodology. 1 The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) endorsed the CONSORT reporting guidelines in 2004 with the requirement to submit the completed CONSORT checklist.2 Consequently, active implementation of the guidelines has been adopted, and restructuring of the article format with the inclusion of multiple subheadings to facilitate accurate and transparent reporting at the submission stage.3,4 Those attempts were supplemented with 2 explanatory articles for the authors, which can be found at the AJO-DO Web site. Despite improvements in reporting, some submissions still fail to fully adhere to the guidelines. In this article, we aim to highlight common deficiencies in terms of reporting and methodology in the relevant sections to help prospective authors when preparing their submissions. The Table summarises the
key points
A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets.
Get PDFBACKGROUND
Patient information leaflets (PILs) are often used to reinforce and provide further information relating to treatment choices, risks, and alternatives. An assessment of the quality of commonly used orthodontic patient information leaflets is lacking.
METHODS
A cross-sectional assessment of patient information leaflets from two international orthodontic societies was undertaken. The quality of each leaflet was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. The readability of each leaflet was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease instrument, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Thirty-six patient information leaflets were identified. Reporting of DISCERN instrument items relating to aims, description of sources, details of additional sources, consequences of no treatment, possible treatment options, and support for a shared decision process was of low quality. The overall quality score for the total sample was 44. The median Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and SMOG index scores were 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 53.3-73.9), 7.2 (IQR 6-9.7), and 7.3 (IQR 6.7-9.1), respectively. There was a significant difference between the quality (-8.00, 95% CI: -14.62, -1.38, p < 0.001), Flesch Reading Ease (-22.30, 95% CI: -26.77, 17.83, p < 0.001) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (3.80, 95% CI: 2.74, 4.86, p < 0.001) scores between the two societies' PILs.
CONCLUSIONS
In relation to the DISCERN instrument, the quality of orthodontic PILs is deemed of moderate quality. There is a significant difference between the quality scores and the readability of PILs from different societies
Are longitudinal randomised controlled oral health trials properly analysed? A meta-epidemiological study.
Get PDFINTRODUCTION
Longitudinal designs with multiple outcome measurements are commonly encountered in oral health randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this meta epidemiological study was to assess whether optimal statistical analysis approaches have been used in longitudinal oral health RCTs.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed search was undertaken in September 2021 for longitudinal oral health RCTs with at least 3 repeated outcome measurements which have been published between 2016- 2020 in the highest impact general and specialty dental journals.
STUDY SELECTION
Study selection and data extraction were accomplished independently and in duplicate. The statistical methods undertaken in the selected articles were tabulated, and the association between study characteristics and use of optimal analyses were assessed using X2 or Fisher's exact test and logistic regression.
RESULTS
Five hundred and five oral health RCTs were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these, only 28.3% RCTs used optimal statistical analyses for a longitudinal trial design. For the trials with an optimal statistical approach, the most frequent test used was repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) followed by mixed effect models (MEM). The use of optimal statistical tests was predicated by the involvement of a statistician (OR: 2, 95% CI:1.27 - 3.18, p<0.01), the journal impact factor (OR:1.19, 95% CI;1.1 - 1.29), continent of first author (likelihood ratio test p=0.01), number of the authors (OR:1.22, 95% CI;1.12-1.3, p<0.001), protocol registration (OR: 1.48, 95%CI; 1 to 2.2, p=0.05), funding(OR:2.4, 95%CI; 1.6 - 3.7, p<0.001), and dental specialty (likelihood ratio test p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Most longitudinal oral health RCTs did not use optimal statistical analyses. Greater awareness of optimal analyses used to assess longitudinal data reported in oral health trials is required to circumvent the reporting of suboptimal inferences, selective reporting and research waste.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Further progress is required to avoid suboptimal statistical analyses and fully utilise the benefits of the repeated measurements over time in oral health RCTs
Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?
Get PDFBACKGROUND
A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.
RESULTS
301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71; p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial
Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals
No full textThe aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions
Prediction intervals reporting in orthodontic meta-analyses.
No full textBACKGROUND
A prediction interval represents a clinical interpretation of heterogeneity. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of prediction interval reporting in orthodontic random effect meta-analyses. The corroboration between effect size estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals were also explored.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic reviews (SRs) published between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2021 containing at least one random effects meta-analysis (minimum of three trials) were identified electronically. SR and meta-analyses characteristics were extracted and prediction intervals, where possible, were calculated. Descriptive statistics and the percentage of meta-analyses where the prediction interval changed the interpretation based on the 95% CI were calculated. Fisher's exact test was used to examine associations between the study variables and reporting of prediction intervals.
RESULTS
One hundred and twenty-one SRs were included. The median number of SR authors was 5 (interquartile range: 4-6). The reporting of prediction intervals was undertaken in only 19.0% (N = 23/121) of meta-analyses. Out of 95 meta-analyses, only in 6 (6.3%, N = 6/95) were the 95% CI corroborated by the prediction interval. In 60 meta-analyses (63.3%, N = 60/95) despite a 95% CI indicating a statistically significant result, this was not corroborated by the corresponding prediction interval.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the study timeframe, reporting of prediction intervals is not routinely undertaken in orthodontic meta-analyses possibly due to a lack of awareness. In future orthodontic random effects models containing a minimum of three trials, reporting of prediction intervals is advocated as this gives an indication of the range of the expected effect of treatment interventions
Publication rate of abstracts from presentations at the British Orthodontic Conference 2009-2014.
No full textOBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the publication rate of scientific abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference 2009-2014. Predictors of full-text publications after presentation of abstracts were explored.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Details of abstracts were retrieved from the conference programmes. Abstracts were screened and full-text publications identified by a single author with discrepancies discussed. Two electronic databases were searched to identify full-text publication of abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference during 2009-2014. Study characteristics were recorded in a prespecified data collection sheet. Descriptive and correlation statistics were calculated. Multivariable Cox regression modelling was implemented in order to assess the effect of predictors on the instance of probability of publication.
RESULTS
A total of 225 abstracts (148 poster presentations and 77 oral presentations) were identified. Observational studies were frequent (60%) and significant results were reported in 38.7% of abstracts. The rate of full-text publication after abstract presentation was 46.2% with a mean time to publication of 18.3 ± 18.7 months. Authors based at both university and hospitals (Hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-5.47, P=0.01) had a higher instant probability of publication compared to university only, whereas diagnostic studies (Hazard ratio: 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.74, P=0.02) had lower instant probability of publication compared to systematic reviews.
CONCLUSION
Over 50% of study abstracts presented at the British Orthodontic Conference during 2009-2014 remain unpublished. Author affiliation and study type appear to influence full text publication. In order to reduce publication bias within the literature, publication of full-text articles by authors of presented abstracts is encouraged
The reporting adherence of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to STROBE guidelines: a meta-epidemiological assessment.
No full textBACKGROUND
To facilitate clear and transparent reporting of observational studies the STROBE guidelines were developed. The aim of this investigation was to assess the reporting adherence of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to STROBE guidelines. Associations between the reporting quality and study characteristics were explored.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A search of five leading orthodontic journals was undertaken to identify observational studies published between 1st January 2021 and 31st June 2021. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Proportional odds ordinal logistic regression for clustered data was implemented to assess potential associations between the three-level categorical outcome (not reported, inadequate reporting, adequate reporting) and study characteristics and individual checklist items.
RESULTS
One hundred and thirty-five studies were analysed. The majority of studies were cohort designs (54.0%). Variability in the reporting of the STROBE guideline items was evident. In particular, a clear description of outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers, statistical methods and participants were inadequately reported. In the multivariable analysis, the overall score test indicated that only item was a significant predictor of reporting quality (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study have highlighted that the reporting of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to the STROBE guidelines is sub-optimal. Key areas of inadequate reporting relate to methodology and results. Key determinant of reporting quality was the STROBE item
- …
