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

Reporting of Search Strategy Among Systematic Reviews in Leading Dental Specialty Journals: A Research-On-Research Study

BACKGROUND

Literature searching is one of the main determinants of a systematic review (SR)'s reliability. Thus, adequate reporting of search strategy is essential for the critical appraisal of SRs and evidence-based practice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals, and to identify factors associated with quality of reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six leading dental journals with the highest 5-year impact factors in their respective specialty were included. A hand search was undertaken to identify SRs published between 2017 and 2022. Full texts were reviewed by two authors to identify eligible SRs. Reporting quality was assessed and scored using a modified 15-item checklist based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were then performed.

SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION

A total of 152 reviews were included and assessed.

RESULTS

As for information sources, only 'citation searching' was adequately reported in most reviews 110 (72.4%). Only 23 (15.1%) of the included reviews clearly reported search strategies. Information about peer review was provided in only 10 reviews (6.6%). Only 91 (59.9%) of the included reviews documented the total records clearly. According to multivariable regression analysis, industrial funding (p = 0.012), registration (p = 0.013) and librarian involvement (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with higher reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of search strategy among SRs in leading dental specialty journals is suboptimal. Researchers, librarians, reviewers and journal editors in dentistry need to be familiar with the PRISMA-S checklist, and make concerted efforts to improve the reporting of search strategy in SRs.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders: Reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Poor reporting quality and spin in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts can lead to misinterpretation and distorted interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVES

This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among RCT abstracts on splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and explore the association between spin and potentially related factors.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed for RCTs on splint therapy for TMD. The reporting quality of each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. The authors evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the presence of spin.

RESULTS

A total of 148 abstracts were included in the reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall CONSORT score (OCS) was 5.86 (score range: 0-16). Only interventions, objectives and conclusions were adequately reported. Of the 61 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 38 abstracts (62.3%), among which 32 abstracts (52.3%) had spin in the Results section and 21 (34.4%) had spin in the Conclusions section. A significantly lower presence of spin was found in studies with exact p-value reporting (OR: 0.170; 95% CI: 0.032-0.887; p = .036) and a two-arm comparison design (OR: 11.777; 95% CI: 2.171-63.877; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts on splint therapy for TMD is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. More awareness and joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Exploration and evaluation of reporting quality of randomised controlled trials on blended learning in medical education

Aims/Background Blended learning has been a commonly adopted teaching mode in the medical education community in recent years. Many studies have shown that the blended learning mode is superior to the traditional teaching mode. Nonetheless, pinpointing the specific advantages provided by blended teaching methods is challenging, since multiple elements influence their effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of the conclusions of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on blended learning in medical education by assessing their quality, and to provide suggestions for future related studies. Methods Two investigators searched PUBMED and EMBASE, and assessed RCTs related to medical blended learning published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021. The analysis of the overall quality of each report was based on the 2010 consolidated standard of reporting trials (CONSORT) Statement applying a 28-point overall quality score. We also conducted a multivariate assessment including year of publication, region of the trial, journal, impact factor, sample size, and the primary outcome. Results A total of 22 RCTs closely relevant to medical blended learning were eventually selected for study. The results demonstrated that half of the studies failed to explicitly describe at least 34% of the items in the 2010 CONSORT Statement. Medical blended learning is an emerging new teaching mode, with 95.45% of RCTs published since 2010. However, many issues that we consider crucial were not satisfactorily addressed in the selected RCTs. Conclusion Although the 2010 CONSORT Statement was published more than a decade ago, the quality of RCTs remains unsatisfactory. Some important items were inadequately reported in many RCTs such as sample size, blinding, and concealment. We encourage researchers who focus on the effects of blended learning in medical education to incorporate the guidelines in the 2010 CONSORT Statement when designing and conducting relevant research. Researchers, reviewers, and editors also need to work together to improve the quality of relevant RCTs in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 CONSORT Statement.

Are units of analysis properly considered in orthodontic meta-analyses?

BACKGROUND

Assessment of unit of analysis (UoA) in meta-analysis with cluster, split-mouth, repeated measures designs, and multiple intervention groups is a fundamental step in the analysis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the UoAs in orthodontic meta-analysis and determine the error of the analysis.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library and PubMed to identify orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses published in Cochrane and in the highest impact orthodontic journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022. SRs with meta-analysis assessing at least one of the following UoAs; cluster trials, crossover trials, multiple observations, or multiple intervention groups were included. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by two investigators independently. Descriptive statistics for the study characteristics were provided. The associations between avoiding the unit analysis error (yes, no) and the study characteristics were examined using Fisher's exact test and chi-square test. Logistic regression was undertaken for the significant predictors.

RESULTS

Eighty SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion. Only 30 per cent of the included SRs avoided UoA errors. Compared to the split-mouth design, repeated measures designs had higher odds of avoiding UoA error (odds ratio: 9.6, 95% confidence interval: 2.8-32.3, P < 0.001). In contrast, fewer odds of avoiding the UoA error were found in the cluster design (OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.4-1.3, P = 0.09). Though multiple intervention groups have higher odds of avoiding UoA error than split-mouth studies, this was not statistically significant (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 0.5-8, P = 0.28). None of the SRs characteristics have influenced the appropriate handling of the unit analysis except the type of the journal; the odds of avoiding the UoA error were higher in Cochrane reviews than the non-Cochrane reviews (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.2-8.7, P = 0.02), and the number of authors (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

UoA errors are common in orthodontic meta-analyses and were only partially avoided in split-mouth design, repeated measures design, and multiple intervention groups.

'Spin' among abstracts of randomised controlled trials in sleep medicine: A research-on-research study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

'Spin', using reporting strategies to distort study results, can mislead readers of medical research. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in sleep medicine journals, and to identify factors associated with its presence and severity.

METHODS

The search for RCTs published between 2010 and 2020 were conducted in seven reputable journals of sleep medicine. Abstracts of RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes were included and analysed for 'spin', according to pre-determined 'spin' strategies. Chi-square tests or logistic regression analyses were performed to detect the association between characteristics of included abstracts and the presence and severity of 'spin'.

RESULTS

A total of 114 RCT abstracts were included in this study, of which 89 (78.1%) were identified as having at least one type of 'spin' strategy. Sixty-six abstracts (57.9%) had 'spin' in the Results section, 82 (71.9%) abstracts presented with 'spin' in the Conclusions section. The presence of 'spin' varied significantly among RCTs based on the different categories of research area (P=0.047) and the statistician involvement (P=0.045). Furthermore, research area (P=0.019) and funding status (P=0.033) were significant factors associated with the severity of 'spin'.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of 'spin' is high among RCT abstracts in sleep medicine. This raise the need for researchers, editors and other stakeholders to be aware of the issue of 'spin' and make joint efforts to eliminate it in future publications.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of dentofacial trauma: Reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND/AIM

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide a summary of the entire trial report. Their transparent, detailed, and accurate reporting is essential for clinical decision-making and evidence-based dental practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality and prevalence of spin in abstracts of RCTs in the field of dentofacial trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed database was searched to identify RCT reports published between 2017 and 2021 in the field of dentofacial trauma. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed according to the 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist and measured with an overall quality score (OQS, range: 0-16). Linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality. Among the included RCTs, parallel-group RCTs with non-significant primary outcomes were selected for spin assessment using predefined spin strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve eligible abstracts were identified and included. The mean OQS was 4.51 (SD, 1.35; 95% CI, 4.26-4.76). Abstracts with more than 250 words (p = .004) and a structured format (p = .032) had significantly better reporting quality. Of the 30 abstracts that were eligible for spin assessment, spin was identified in 23 (76.7%). Among these, spin was observed in the Conclusions sections of 22 abstracts (73.3%) and the Results sections of 9 abstracts (30.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among RCT abstracts in the field of dentofacial trauma, the reporting quality was sub-optimal and the prevalence of spin was relatively high. Strict adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines is needed to ensure complete and transparent reporting. Relevant stakeholders need to make concerted efforts to avoid spin.

Reporting inconsistency between published conference abstracts and article abstracts of randomised controlled trials in prosthodontics presented at IADR general sessions

Background

There is commonly a discrepancy between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may mislead the scholars those attend conferences.

Objective

To identify the characteristics predicting inconsistency between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic RCTs.

Methods

The conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at the IADR general sessions from 2002 to 2015 were searched. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were conducted to match full-text publications for conference abstracts. Two investigators extracted basic characteristics and assessed the consistency and reporting quality independently and in duplicate. The linear regression model was used to analyze the predictors of inconsistency.

Results

A total of 147 conference abstracts were matched with published articles. Results for the secondary outcome measure, Statistical analysis, and precision measure were less than 50% consistent, and even nearly 5% of the studies had opposite conclusions. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that three factors were correlated with lower inconsistency, including continent of origin (p = 0.011), presentation type (p = 0.017), and difference in reporting quality (p = 0.013).

Conclusion

Conference attendees should cautiously treat the findings of the conference abstracts. Researchers should improve the precision of the information delivered at conferences. We recommend the authors of RCTs to explain the primary difference between conference abstracts and article abstracts.

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 presence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomized controlled trial abstracts in orthodontics

OBJECTIVES

To identify the presence and characteristics of spin (using reporting strategies to distort study results and mislead readers) within randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in orthodontic journals, and to explore the association between spin and potentially related factors.

METHODS

A manual search was conducted to identify abstracts of RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes published in five leading orthodontic journals between 2015 and 2020. Spin in the Results and Conclusions sections of each included abstract was evaluated and categorized according to pre-determined spin strategies. Logistic regression analyses were employed to explore the association between spin and relevant factors.

RESULTS

A total of 111 RCT abstracts were included, of which 69 (62.2 per cent) were identified with spin. In the Results section, 47 (42.3 per cent) abstracts had spin, and 'focusing on significant within-group comparison for primary outcomes' was the most frequent spin strategy. In the Conclusions section, 57 (51.4 per cent) abstracts presented spin, with the most common strategy being 'claiming equivalence or non-inferiority for statistically nonsignificant results'. According to multivariable logistic regression analysis, a significantly lower presence of spin was found in studies with international collaboration (odds ratio [OR]: 0.331, 95 per cent confidence interval [CI]: 0.120-0.912, P = 0.033) and trial registration (OR: 0.336, 95 per cent CI: 0.117-0.962, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of spin is high among RCT abstracts in orthodontics. Clinicians need to be aware of the definition and presence of spin. Concerted efforts are needed from researchers and other stakeholders to address this issue.