CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials in dentistry

Altmetric and impact analysis of randomized clinical trials in dentistry

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated altmetrics, citations, and field-normalized impact of dental articles reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published within a one-year period.

METHODS

Data were collected in 2024 from PubMed-indexed RCTs published in 2019. Dependent variables included Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), PlumX citations, and Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI). Independent variables encompassed article-, author-, and journal-related variables. Adjusted quasi-Poisson regression models were used to assess associations. Point-biserial correlation evaluated the relationship between Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and selected reporting variables.

RESULTS

A total of 653 RCTs were included, with periodontology, implantology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery comprising 50.4 % of the sample. Only 28.6 % of the articles reported CONSORT use, 49.6 % pre-registered their protocol, and 68.8 % reported a sample size calculation. Most articles (63.6 %) reported no conflicts of interest, with unclear sponsorship being the most frequent (34.6 %). Regression analyses revealed significant associations for AAS, PlumX citations, and FWCI with various factors. JIF increased AAS by 17 % per unit, PlumX citations by 13 %, and FWCI by 6 %. Protocol pre-registration boosted AAS by 132 %, while mixed or no sponsorship increased PlumX citations by up to 47 %. First author H-index increased PlumX citations and FWCI by 1 % per unit, while first author continent impacted AAS, citations, and FWCI. Weak positive correlations between JIF and both protocol pre-registration and CONSORT use were observed. No significant differences were observed across different dental fields for any metric.

CONCLUSION

An interplay among article-, author-, and journal-related variables collectively influenced the online attention, citations, and impact of dental RCT articles.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Understanding the factors that influence the visibility and impact of dental RCTs can guide researchers in improving the design, reporting, and dissemination of their studies, ultimately enhancing the quality and reach of dental research.

Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry.

METHODS

This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty.

RESULTS

A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code.

CONSORT statement adherence and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials on deep caries management: a meta-research

BACKGROUND

Recently, trials have supported changes in deep caries management. However, reporting might lack details, affecting interpretation and implementation. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT statement and the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep caries management published in pediatric dental journals.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for RCTs in six pediatric dental journals between 2010 and 2022, focusing on deep caries lesion management. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline and the risk of bias were assessed using a modified tool with 19 items; each scored from 0 to 2 (maximum of 38 points), and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. We performed descriptive and regression analyses (α = 5%).

RESULTS

We analyzed 127 RCTs. The mean (standard deviation) CONSORT adherence score was 21.1 (6.7). Notably, 96.1% of the studies received a score of 2 for the "intervention" item, whereas 83.5% scored 0 for the "estimated effect size". The risk of bias assessment revealed that 40.2% of the RCTs were at high risk, 59% were at low risk, and 0.8% were at low risk. RCTs with a high risk of bias had lower CONSORT scores (p<0.001) than those with low or some concerns. RCTs published in journals without the endorsement of the CONSORT statement had lower scores than those in journals with the endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Older RCTs (6-10 years old and more than 10 years old) showed significantly lower CONSORT statement compliance than trials published recently within 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the CONSORT was relatively low among the investigated RCTs. Moreover, lower adherence to the CONSORT was associated with a higher risk of bias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework - DOI ( 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6SYZ ).

Challenges in conducting clinical research in primary care dentistry

The integration of dentistry into primary health care is crucial for promoting patient well-being. However, clinical studies in dentistry face challenges, including issues with study design, transparency, and relevance to primary care. Clinical trials in dentistry often focus on specific issues with strict eligibility criteria, limiting the generalizability of findings. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) face challenges in reflecting real-world conditions and using clinically relevant outcomes. The need for more pragmatic approaches and the inclusion of clinically relevant outcomes (CROs) is discussed, such as tooth loss or implant success. Solutions proposed include well-controlled observational studies, optimized data collection tools, and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for predictive modelling, computer-aided diagnostics and automated diagnosis. In this position paper advocates for more efficient trials with a focus on patient-centred outcomes, as well as the adoption of pragmatic study designs reflecting real-world conditions. Collaborative research networks, increased funding, enhanced data retrieval, and open science practices are also recommended. Technology, including intraoral scanners and AI, is highlighted for improving efficiency in dental research. AI is seen as a key tool for participant recruitment, predictive modelling, and outcome evaluation. However, ethical considerations and ongoing validation are emphasized to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of AI-driven solutions in dental research. In conclusion, the efficient conduct of clinical research in primary care dentistry requires a comprehensive approach, including changes in study design, data collection, and analytical methods. The integration of AI is seen as pivotal in achieving these objectives in a meaningful and efficient way.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Abstracts provide readers a concise and readily accessible information of the trials. However, poor reporting quality and spin (misrepresentation of research findings) can lead to an overestimation in trial validity. This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in pediatric dentistry.

METHODS

We hand-searched RCTs in five leading pediatric dental journals between 2015 and 2021. Reporting quality in each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. We evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts of parallel-group RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-two abstracts were included in reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall quality score was 4.57 (SD, 0.103; 95% CI, 4.36-4.77; score range, 1-10). Only interventions, objective, and conclusions were adequately reported. Use of flow diagram (P < 0.001) was the only significant factor of higher reporting quality. Of the 51 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 40 abstracts (78.4%), among which 23 abstracts (45.1%) had spin in the Results section and 39 in the Conclusions Sect. (76.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in pediatric dentistry is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. Joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Metaresearch study highlights the gender gap in randomized controlled trials in dentistry

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the gender gap in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry in terms of authorship, collaborations, metrics, funding and reporting of good research practice and transparecy.

METHODS

The search was performed in PubMed for RCTs restricted to English texts in the dental field, indexed from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2021. Two reviewers screened the studies in line with the eligibility criteria. A total of 844 articles were included. The name and gender of authors, citation metrics, funding, reporting of characteristics of good research practice and transparency were extracted. We considered "collaboration between authors" when the corresponding author was different from the first author.

RESULTS

The proportion of women as first authors was 46.56% and 40.12% for corresponding authors. The analysis showed that when a woman is the corresponding author, the probability of the first author also being a woman is 57% higher compared to the first author being a man. For "protocol registration" and "data sharing," the prevalence of reporting was higher when women were first authors.

CONCLUSION

A gender gap in dentistry RCTs was identified and related to the participation of women as first and corresponding authors and the collaboration between authors.

Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem

Conversations about open science have reached the mainstream, yet many open science practices such as data sharing remain uncommon. Our efforts towards openness therefore need to increase in scale and aim for a more ambitious target. We need an ecosystem not only where research outputs are openly shared but also in which transparency permeates the research process from the start and lends itself to more rigorous and collaborative research. To support this vision, this Essay provides an overview of a selection of open science initiatives from the past 2 decades, focusing on methods transparency, scholarly communication, team science, and research culture, and speculates about what the future of open science could look like. It then draws on these examples to provide recommendations for how funders, institutions, journals, regulators, and other stakeholders can create an environment that is ripe for improvement.

Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology reporting over time.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a deep learning-based sentence classification model based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, considered minimum requirements for reporting RCTs. We included 176,469 RCT reports published between 1966 and 2018. We analyzed the reporting trends over 5-year time periods, grouping trials from 1966 to 1990 in a single stratum. We also explored the effect of journal impact factor (JIF) and medical discipline.

RESULTS

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) items were commonly reported during each period, and reporting increased over time (e.g., interventions: 79.1% during 1966-1990 to 87.5% during 2010-2018). Reporting of some methods information has increased, although there is room for improvement (e.g., sequence generation: 10.8-41.8%). Some items are reported infrequently (e.g., allocation concealment: 5.1-19.3%). The number of items reported and JIF are weakly correlated (Pearson's r (162,702) = 0.16, P < 0.001). The differences in the proportion of items reported between disciplines are small (<10%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis provides large-scale quantitative support for the hypothesis that RCT methodology reporting has improved over time. Extending these models to all CONSORT items could facilitate compliance checking during manuscript authoring and peer review, and support metaresearch.

Prospective registration of randomized clinical trials for total shoulder arthroplasty is low: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prospective trial registration has become an important means of improving the transparency and reproducibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and is recommended by the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Herein, we performed a cross-sectional evaluation of RCTs published in JSES from 2010 to present to determine the prevalence of trial registration and consistency of outcome reporting.

METHODS

The electronic database PubMed was searched to identify all RCTs on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) published in JSES from 2010 to 2022 using the search terms "randomized controlled trial" AND "shoulder" AND "arthroplasty OR replacement." RCTs were considered to be registered if they provided a registration number. For articles that were registered, authors also extracted the registry name, registration date, date of first enrollment, date of last enrollment, and if the primary outcomes reported in the registry were either (1) omitted, (2) newly introduced in the publication, (3) reported as a secondary outcome or vice versa, or (4) varied in timing of assessment compared to the publication. "Early" RCTs were considered those published from 2010 to 2016, whereas "later" RCTs were from 2017 to 2022.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 16 early RCTs and 42 later RCTs. Twenty-three of the 58 (39.7%) studies were registered, with 9 of 22 with an available registry (40.9%) of those being enrolled prior to patient enrollment. Nineteen of the registered studies (82.6%) provided the name of the registry and a registration number. The proportion of later RCTs that were registered was not significantly different from the early RCTs (45.2% vs. 25.0%, P = .232). Seven RCTs (31.8%) had at least 1 inconsistency compared with the registry. The most common discrepancy was the timing of the assessment (ie, follow-up period) reported in the publication vs. the registry.

DISCUSSION

Although JSES recommends prospective trial registration, less than half of shoulder arthroplasty RCTs are registered and more than 30% registered trials have at least 1 inconsistency with their registry record. More rigorous review of trial registration and accuracy is necessary to limit bias in published shoulder arthroplasty RCTs.

Reporting of flow diagrams in randomised controlled trials published in periodontology and implantology: a survey

BACKGROUND

Item 13 of the CONSORT guidelines recommends documentation of the participant flow in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using a diagram. In the medical literature, the reporting of the flow of participants in RCTs has been assessed to be inadequate. The quality of reporting flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of flow diagrams in RCTs published in periodontology and implantology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs published between 15^th January 2018 and 15^th January 2022 in twelve high-ranked periodontology and implantology journals were identified. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. The flow diagram included in each RCT was assessed for completeness of reporting in relation to published criteria and the CONSORT flow diagram template.

RESULTS

From the 544 eligible articles, 85% were single-centre, 82% of parallel-group design and 79% investigated surgical interventions. Three-hundred and fifteen (58%) articles were published in CONSORT endorsing journals. A flow diagram was reported in 317 (58%) trials and reporting was more common in periodontology (73.1%). Overall, 56% of publications with a flow diagram reported a complete CONSORT flow diagram, while in 44% of flow diagrams, at least one point from the CONSORT reporting template was missing. Reasons for loss to follow-up (69.7%) and exclusions from the RCT analysis (86.4%) were poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology RCTs was sub-optimal. Greater awareness of the importance of fully completing the participant CONSORT flow diagram is required.

Potential discolouration of silver diamine fluoride versus silver diamine fluoride/potassium iodide in primary teeth: a randomised clinical study

Aim This study aimed to evaluate the potential discolouration and carious lesion arresting effect of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) and silver diamine fluoride/potassium iodide (SDF/KI) in the treatment of carious primary teeth.Materials and method A total of 30 carious primary canines were randomly assigned to treatment groups where Group I was treated with SDF while Group II was treated with SDF/KI. Caries arrest was assessed based on consistency and stability of lesion size while the discolouration of treated lesions was assessed digitally using a VITA Easyshade spectrophotometer.Results Both treatments demonstrated 100% efficacy in arresting active caries lesions. Regarding discolouration, the total colour difference represented by delta E (ΔE) was 16.45 ± 5.69 for Group I compared to 9.54 ± 3.09 for Group II immediately post-operative, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.003). Both groups showed similar values at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment, with no statistically significant difference. No incidence of serious adverse effects related to either treatment and the majority of parents/guardians were satisfied with both treatments compromising their child's aesthetic appearance.Conclusions Both SDF and SDF/KI are effective in arresting carious lesions in primary teeth but in terms of the discolouration potential, the use of KI significantly reduced the discolouration caused by SDF immediately post-operatively. Unfortunately, marked discolouration was recorded in the subsequent follow-up visits, compromising the aesthetic outcome.

The reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials in oral implantology: A methodological study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in oral implantology published during the past 10 years, and to investigate whether there was any improvement over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for SMTs in oral implantology published during 2011-20. We used CONSORT 2010, its extension for within-person trial (WPT), and an SMT-specific methodological checklist to assess trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Binary scores were given to each item, and total scores of TRQ (range 0-32), WRQ (0-15), and SMQ (0-3) were calculated for each study. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to compare the quality of SMTs published before (2011-17) and after (2018-20) the release of CONSORT for WPT.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine SMTs were included. The mean TRQ, WRQ, and SMQ were 16.4, 6.7, and 1.3, respectively. Less than one-third (n = 25, 31.6%) reported the rationale for using split-mouth designs. Only 4 (5.1%) trials adequately conducted sample size calculation, and 40 (50.6%) used appropriate statistical methods that considered dependency and clustering of data. In multivariable analyses, compared with 2011-17, studies published in 2018-20 had significantly higher TRQ (p = .044), while WRQ and SMQ did not show improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodological quality of SMTs in oral implantology need to be improved. Joint efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodology of SMTs in this field.

The reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in the top dental specialty journals is suboptimal

Background

Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are smaller investigations seeking to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger more definitive study. In late 2016, the CONSORT statement was extended to disseminate good practices for reporting of randomized pilot and feasibility trials. In this quality assurance review, we assessed whether PAFS in the top dental speciality journals adhere to good practices of conduct and reporting, by prioritizing assessment of feasibility and stating pre-defined progression criteria to inform the decision to pursue funding for a larger trial.

Methods

With the help of a librarian, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2017 to 2020, inclusive, for PAFS in the top 3 journals from each of the 10 dental specialties. We collected data on methodological and general characteristics of the studies, their objectives, and reporting of items recommended in the CONSORT extension.

Results

Of the 111 trials included, 51.4% (95% CI 41.7–61.0%) stated some indication of intent to assess feasibility while zero reported progression criteria; 74.8% (95% CI 65.6–82.5%) of trials used the terms “pilot” or “feasibility” in their titles and 82.9% (95% CI 74.6–89.4%) of studies stated there is a need for a future trial, but only 9.0% (95% CI 4.4–15.9%) stated intent to proceed to one. Most of the studies, 53.2% (95% CI 43.4–62.7%), reported hypothesis testing without cautioning readers on the generalizability of the results. Studies that used the terms “pilot” or “feasibility” in their title were less likely to have feasibility objectives, compared to trials that did not, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.310 (95% CI 0.103–0.930; p = 0.037). Compared to trials that did not conduct hypothesis testing, trials that conducted hypothesis testing were significantly less likely to assess feasibility, among them, trials that cautioned readers on the generalizability of their results had an OR of 0.038 (95% CI 0.005–0.264; p < 0.001) and trials that did not caution readers on the generalizability of their results had an OR of 0.043 (95% CI 0.008–0.238; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Many PAFS in dentistry are not conducted with the intent of assessing feasibility, nor do they state progression criteria, and few report intent to proceed to a future trial. Misconceptions about PAFS can lead to them being poorly conducted and reported, which has economic and ethical implications. Research ethics boards, funding agencies, and journals need to raise their standards for the conduct and reporting of PAFS, and resources should be developed to address misconceptions and help guide researchers on the best practices for their conduct and reporting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01182-1.

Reporting quality for abstracts of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention: a meta-epidemiological study on adherence to CONSORT for abstracts

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts in reports of randomised trials on child and adolescent depression prevention. Secondary objective was to examine factors associated with overall reporting quality.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and CENTRAL.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials were eligible if the sample consisted of children and adolescents under 18 years with or without an increased risk for depression or subthreshold depression. We included reports published from 1 January 2003 to 8 August 2020 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised trials (CRTs) assessing universal, selective and indicated interventions aiming to prevent the onset of depression or reducing depressive symptoms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

As the primary outcome measure, we assessed for each trial abstract whether information recommended by CONSORT was adequately reported, inadequately reported or not reported. Moreover, we calculated a summative score of overall reporting quality and analysed associations with trial and journal characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 169 eligible studies, 103 (61%) RCTs and 66 (39%) CRTs. Adequate reporting varied considerably across CONSORT items: while 9 out of 10 abstracts adequately reported the study objective, no abstract adequately provided information on blinding. Important adverse events or side effects were only adequately reported in one out of 169 abstracts. Summative scores for the abstracts' overall reporting quality ranged from 17% to 83%, with a median of 40%. Scores were associated with the number of authors, abstract word count, journal impact factor, year of publication and abstract structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality for abstracts of trials on child and adolescent depression prevention is suboptimal. To help health professionals make informed judgements, efforts for improving adherence to reporting guidelines for abstracts are needed.

Short versus standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Bone loss in the edentulous posterior maxilla complicates dental implant placement. In spite of the evidence available, there is continued uncertainty about the benefit of short implants for different outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the existing evidence for short and standard implants in association with sinus floor elevation regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and complications by using an umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analysis of interventional studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing short implants and standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. Outcomes were categorized and tabulated to assess effectiveness. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

From 2011 studies, 7 systematic reviews (66 studies) were included as per the eligibility criteria. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for implant survival (risk ratio=1.08; P=.79), and the qualitative analysis did not show differences for prosthetic outcomes. Standard implants were associated with fewer prosthetic complications in the quantitative analysis (risk ratio=3.27; P<.01), but no difference was found between the treatments in the qualitative analysis. Short implants showed reduced marginal bone loss (0.98 ±0.12 mm; mean difference=-0.22; P<.01) and better biologic outcomes (risk ratio=0.16; P<.01). Patient satisfaction was similar for both groups, whereas costs and time for the procedure favored short implants. The quality of the evidence was graded as "critically low" (57.1% of the reviews) and "low." There was a high certainty of evidence for implant survival, whereas marginal bone loss and complications had moderate certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Short implants had a better or equal performance compared with standard implants for all outcomes assessed. However, assumptions were based on reviews with low or critically low quality of the evidence, suggesting the development of high-quality systematic reviews in this field.

CONSORT Compliance in Randomized Clinical Trials of Regenerative Endodontic treatments of Necrotic Immature Teeth. A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate methodological quality of clinical trials in regenerative endodontics and its compliance with the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in eight electronic databases. Only clinical trials whose participants underwent regenerative endodontic treatment on necrotic permanent immature teeth were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool (RoB, version 2.0). Compliance of articles with the CONSORT guidelines was assessed by a tool with scales: 0 = no description, 1 = deficient, and 2 = adequate description, totaling a maximum score of 32 points. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the scores between journals, studies, country, income levels, and publication periods. Spearman correlation analyses were performed between CONSORT compliance scores and 2019 journal CiteScore values, publication year, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. The average CONSORT compliance score was 20.95 (±6.19). The better reported items were the description of the interventions performed in the trials (100%), followed by the description of the number of patients analyzed, losses and exclusions (90%) and the hypothesis tested (85%). Within the 20 studies, 3 articles were classified as "low risk of bias," 8 studies were classified as "some concerns" and 9 studies were considered "high risk of bias". Studies carried out in countries with higher income levels presented higher CONSORT scores. Significant moderate correlations were found between the CONSORT score and the percentage of risk of bias in low-risk domains (r_s = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.31 to 0.94, p = 0.003) and the overall risk of bias categories (r_s = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.54 to 0.98, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The adequacy of reporting based on the CONSORT checklist items of regenerative endodontic trials was low with a moderate to high risk of bias.

University of Alabama at Birmingham Nathan Shock Center: comparative energetics of aging

The UAB Nathan Shock Center focuses on comparative energetics and aging. Energetics, as defined for this purpose, encompasses the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of the acquisition, storage, and use of metabolizable energy. Comparative energetics is the study of metabolic processes at multiple scales and across multiple species as it relates to health and aging. The link between energetics and aging is increasingly understood in terms of dysregulated mitochondrial function, altered metabolic signaling, and aberrant nutrient responsiveness with increasing age. The center offers world-class expertise in comprehensive, integrated energetic assessment and analysis from the level of the organelle to the organism and across species from the size of worms to rats as well as state-of-the-art data analytics. The range of services offered by our three research cores, (1) The Organismal Energetics Core, (2) Mitometabolism Core, and (3) Data Analytics Core, is described herein.

Improving the reporting of orthodontic clinical audits: an evaluation

Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting of orthodontic audits published between 2013-2019 following the introduction of a submission template in 2015.Methods An audit reporting checklist was developed, with each audit independently assessed by two assessors. Based on the previous quality checklist, an overall score of 4 or less represented poor reporting, 5-8 fair reporting and 9 or greater good reporting. All data variables were collected in a pre-piloted Excel data collection sheet.Results One hundred and fifty-nine audits were identified. A range of reporting scores were evident. The overall mean score was 10.1 (SD 1.5). Reporting scores showed improvement during the study timeframe, with a general increase in scores evident from 2015. Higher scores were achieved by multi-cycle audits (coefficient [coef]: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.62, p <0.001). Lower scores were achieved by partial audits (coef: -1.8, 95% CI: -2.23, -1.36, p <0.001), but scores increased every year (coef: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.27, p <0.001).Conclusions The reporting of orthodontic audits is rated as good, with yearly improvement in scores evident. The introduction of a submission template had a positive effect on the reporting of audits. Recommendations to further improve the quality of audits are outlined.

COMPLIANCE OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS ON DENTAL CARIES PREVENTION METHODS WITH THE CONSORT STATEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry remains suboptimal. Considering the positive impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines on the quality of evidence in RCTs, the main objective of this systematic review was to determine whether RCTs on dental caries prevention conform to these guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess the association between CONSORT adherence and the year and impact factor of the journal in which the study was published.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in different databases using appropriate terms to retrieve RCTs that assessed the caries-preventive effect of at least 2 of the following materials-fluoride varnish, resin-based fissure sealants, and ionomer-based fissure sealants-on the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. Since the first CONSORT statement was published in 1996, a time frame from 1997 to 2020 was established for the identification of studies. Selected articles were assessed according to their adherence to the CONSORT statement, risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool, RoB 2.0), and journal impact factor based on the InCites Journal Citation Reports. The year of publication and other relevant data were also recorded. SPSS (SPSS Statistics 25.0, IBM©) was used to perform the linear correlation analyses to determine the relationship between the article CONSORT score (previously determined) and the year of publication and journal impact factor. A significance level of 5% was established for all analyses.

RESULTS

Of 3196 references retrieved, 30 articles were selected and evaluated. Using RoB 2.0, 8 studies were classified as having a high risk of bias, 16 as having some concerns about the risk of bias assessment, and 6 as having a low risk of bias. Concerning CONSORT adherence, 77% of the studies adequately reported the intervention domain, since the methodology for the application of fluoride varnish or sealant materials was thoroughly described. However, the participants' setting and location, random sequence generation, randomization, and the flowchart description of the losses/exclusions domains were poorly reported. Meanwhile, the allocation concealment process was not reported in 83% of the articles. Correlation analyses indicated a positive relationship between CONSORT adherence and the year of publication, as well as the journal impact factor.

CONCLUSION

When assessing clinical trials on the prevention of occlusal caries, most RCTs examined followed the CONSORT statement. However, some methodological domains remain poorly reported, demonstrating the need to improve CONSORT compliance in these RCTs.

The reporting quality of split-mouth trials in orthodontics according to CONSORT guidelines: 2015-19

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in orthodontic journals, and to identify factors associated with better reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven leading orthodontic journals were hand searched for SMTs published during 2015-19. The CONSORT 2010 guideline and CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension were used to assess the trial reporting quality (TRQ) and WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ) of included SMTs, respectively. A binary score (0 or 1) was given to each item of the guidelines, and total scores were calculated for TRQ (score range, 0-32) and WRQ (score range, 0-15). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with TRQ and WRQ.

RESULTS

A total of 42 SMTs were included. The mean overall scores for TRQ and WRQ were 16.8 [standard deviation (SD) 7.1] and 5.6 (SD 2.3), respectively. Only 11 SMTs (26.2%) presented the rationale for using a split-mouth design. Key methodological items including random sequence generation (22/42, 52.4%), allocation concealment (9/42, 21.4%), and blinding (20/42, 47.6%) were poorly reported. Only six SMTs (14.3%) used a paired method for sample size calculation, and half (21/42, 50.0%) considered the dependent nature of data in statistical analysis. In multivariable analyses, higher TRQ and WRQ were both significantly associated with journal, reported use of CONSORT and funding status.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of SMTs in orthodontics has much room for improvement. Joint efforts from relevant stakeholders are needed to improve the reporting quality of SMTs and reduce relevant avoidable research waste.

Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review. Impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs were identified by forward citation and electronic database searches. We categorized the design of impact studies as appropriate for randomized and nonrandomized experiments, excluding uncontrolled before-after study. For impact studies with appropriate study design, we assessed the quality of methods and reporting. We compared the quality of methods and reporting between impact and matched control studies.

RESULTS

We found 110 impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs. Of these, 65 (59.1%) used inappropriate designs. Of 45 impact studies with appropriate design, 31 (68.9%) had substantial risk of bias. Mean number of reporting domains that impact studies with appropriate study design adhered to was 10.2 of 21 domains (95% confidence interval, 9.3 and 11.1). The quality of methods and reporting was not clearly different between impact and matched control studies.

CONCLUSION

We found most impact studies either used inappropriate study design, had substantial risk of bias, or poorly complied with reporting guidelines. This appears to be a common feature of complex interventions. Users of CPRs should critically evaluate evidence showing the effectiveness of CPRs.

Effects of Guanxinshutong Capsules as Complementary Treatment in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a common cardiovascular disease with high mortality and a poor prognosis, which places heavy burdens upon society and families. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used extensively as complementary treatment for CHF. Guanxinshutong (GXST) capsules are used commonly for the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). Experimental research and small-sample clinical trials have shown that GXST can attenuate CHF. However, the effects of GXST as complementary medicine in CHF treatment lack high-quality clinical evidence. We have designed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that explores the efficacy and safety of using GXST compared with placebo for patients with CHF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A total of 480 participants will be assigned randomly to the GXST group or placebo group at a 2:1 ratio. GXST and placebo will be added to standard treatment for 12 weeks, and then followed up for another 40 weeks. The primary outcome is the improvement value of 6-min walk distance, and the secondary outcomes include plasma levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, New York Heart Association classification, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores, echocardiographic parameters, and clinical endpoint events. Adverse events will be monitored throughout the trial. Data will be analyzed following a predefined statistical analysis plan. This study will show the effects of the specific use of GXST in CHF patients with reduced LVEF. The Research Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University has approved this study (2019-Y-003-02). Written informed consent of patients will be required. This trial is registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900023877). Our results will be disseminated to the public through peer-reviewed journals, academic conferences, and the Internet.

Transparency in clinical trials: Adding value to paediatric dental research

BACKGROUND

Even though considered as studies with high methodological power, many RCTs in paediatric dentistry do not have essential quality items in their design, development, and report, making results' reliability questionable, replication challenging to conduct, wasting time, money, and efforts, and even exposing the participants to research for no benefit.

AIM

We addressed the main topics related to transparency in clinical research, with an emphasis in paediatric dentistry.

DESIGN

We searched for all controlled clinical trials published from January 2019 up to July 2020 in the three paediatric dentistry journals with high journal Impact Factor, indexed on Medline. These papers were assessed for transparency according to Open Science practices and regarding reporting accuracy using some items required by CONSORT.

RESULTS

53.6% of the studies declared registration, 75% had sample size calculation, 98.2% reported randomisation, and from those, 65.4% explained the randomisation method. Besides that, no study shared their data, and 6.8% were published in open access format.

CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, a large proportion of RCTs in paediatric dental research show a lack of transparency and reproducibility.

Knowledge synthesis: How to improve the use of evidence from clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

The value of systematic reviews (SRs) is determined by methodology and reporting quality of primary studies and how the SR is conducted and reported.

AIM

This study discusses key aspects of clinical trials (CTs) that might affect the value of SRs.

DESIGN

Narrative review.

RESULTS

We highlighted the following CT factors that could affect SR value: Defining the purpose of CTs is important because it could directly impact whether an SR question is appropriately answered and formulated; choose the most appropriate intervention to answer a proposed SR question is critical because we can exclude or include different studies, directly influencing selection bias; when conducting SRs, the study's search must be restricted to equal or highly similar comparison groups, allowing suitable comparisons of the outcomes' estimates; in SRs, it may be interesting to explore the effect of the most common definition of the disease used in clinical practice, being useful in evidence-based dentistry and easily translated to daily practitioners; and deficiencies in CT reporting can lead to unusable reports, biased results, and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

All aspects discussed were found to be important for improving the use of evidence from CTs.

Quality of Split-Mouth Trials in Dentistry: 1998, 2008, and 2018

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) published during the past 2 decades and to determine whether there has been an improvement in their quality over time. We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed to identify SMTs published in 1998, 2008, and 2018. For each included SMT, we used the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guideline, CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension, and a new 3-item checklist to assess its trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Multivariable generalized linear models were performed to analyze the quality of SMTs over time, adjusting for potential confounding factors. A total of 119 SMTs were included. The mean overall score for the TRQ (score range, 0 to 32), WRQ (0 to 15), and SMQ (0 to 3) was 15.77 (SD 4.51), 6.06 (2.06), and 1.12 (0.70), respectively. The primary outcome was clearly defined in only 28 SMTs (23.5%), and only 27 (22.7%) presented a replicable sample size calculation. Only 45 SMTs (37.8%) provided the rationale for using a split-mouth design. The correlation between body sites was reported in only 5 studies (4.2%) for sample size calculation and 4 studies (3.4%) for statistical results. Only 2 studies (1.7%) performed an appropriate sample size calculation, and 46 (38.7%) chose appropriate statistical methods, both accounting for the correlation among treatment groups and the clustering/multiplicity of measurements within an individual. Results of regression analyses suggested that the TRQ of SMTs improved significantly with time ( P < 0.001), while there was no evidence of improvement in WRQ or SMQ. Both the reporting quality and methodological quality of SMTs still have much room for improvement. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the execution and reporting of SMTs.