Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?
CONSORT
Interventional studies
Orthodontics
Research waste
SPIRIT
Systematic reviews
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Dec 2021
17 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
accepted:
06
12
2021
entrez:
17
12
2021
pubmed:
18
12
2021
medline:
21
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34918200
doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00395-z
pii: 10.1186/s40510-021-00395-z
pmc: PMC8677858
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
48Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):267-76
pubmed: 24411647
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;67(9):1044-8
pubmed: 24837296
J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Sep;146(9):669-678.e1
pubmed: 26314976
J Dent. 2021 Jun;109:103658
pubmed: 33836249
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):280-2
pubmed: 9676682
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:20-25
pubmed: 29306063
Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9
pubmed: 19525005
Trials. 2018 Feb 17;19(1):116
pubmed: 29454390
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7
pubmed: 23295957
BMJ. 2004 Dec 11;329(7479):1360
pubmed: 15591544
J Evid Based Med. 2020 Aug;13(3):181-182
pubmed: 32615030
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):834-40
pubmed: 20346629
Trials. 2016 Dec 7;17(1):581
pubmed: 27927219
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 25;13:50
pubmed: 23530582
Trials. 2014 Jul 16;15:286
pubmed: 25027292
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Oct 28;21(1):107
pubmed: 33115456
Lancet. 2010 Jul 3;376(9734):20-1
pubmed: 20609983
J R Soc Med. 2007 Apr;100(4):187-90
pubmed: 17404342