American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleReporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011
Section snippets
Material and methods
A literature search was undertaken to identify RCTs in 4 leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011. Electronic searching with supplementary hand searching of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics was undertaken. Eligible studies met the following inclusion criteria: the phrase “randomized controlled trial” or “randomised controlled trial” was in the title or abstract,
Results
From January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2011, a total of 117 RCTs were identified in the 4 leading orthodontic journals (Table I). Most of the RCTs were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53.0%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23.0%). Most of the research was conducted in Europe (64.1%). The vast majority of RCTs were single-center (86.3%), with slightly more studies reporting significant main outcomes (58.1%) than not. In relation to the quality
Discussion
Publication of informative and clear research abstracts is instrumental for consumers of research and reviewers and editors involved in the peer reviewing of articles. The results from RCTs should give clinicians influential, high-quality evidence either in isolation or by amalgamating with similar studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It is therefore important that both the body and abstract of an RCT are reported clearly and in keeping with accepted standards. In this study, we
Conclusions
The quality of reporting of abstracts of RCTs in orthodontic journals needs improvement. In particular, reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, results, and methods of data analysis is inadequate. Reporting was slightly better in articles published by European authors and in the Journal of Orthodontics.
References (18)
- et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Contr Clin Trials
(1996) - et al.
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists
Contr Clin Trials
(1995) - et al.
Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(2006) CONSORT and QUOROM guidelines for reporting randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2005)- et al.
Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2006) - et al.
Alleviation of mandibular anterior crowding with copper-nickel-titanium vs nickel-titanium wires: a double-blind randomized control trial
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2009) - et al.
Publication guidelines need widespread adoption
J Clin Epidemiol
(2012) - et al.
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
BMJ
(2010) - et al.
Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
BMJ
(2001)
Cited by (59)
CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials
2023, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAre published randomized clinical trials abstracts on periodontics reported adequately?
2020, Contemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsCitation Excerpt :In orthodontics, for example, Jadad [3] developed a simple quantitative scale for assessing RCTs, and this scale was used to assess published RCTs in orthodontic journals from 1989 to 1998(15). Later, after the CONSORT assessment checklist was published, 117 RCTs in orthodontics were assessed between 2006 and 2011, and the findings of this study showed that these RCTs had been inadequately reported [9–15]. Another study looked at the RCTs published in orthodontic journals that have endorsed the CONSORT guidelines for reporting RCTs and observed that, despite this endorsement, a deficit in the RCT reporting quality still existed [16].
Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting
2019, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsReporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts—A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis
2018, Journal of Evidence-Based Dental PracticeThe reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature
2017, Contemporary Clinical Trials CommunicationsCitation Excerpt :An item was posed as a question with the response options: “Yes,” “No,” and “Unclear.” We treated them in the analysis by summing the scores for each item (1 for “yes”, 0.5 for “unclear” and 0 for “no”) [17]. We also extracted the relevant information from the included full texts, including the first author, year of publication, journal name, number of authors, country where the study was conducted, format of the abstract (structured or not), related setting (healthcare or non-healthcare), type of intervention (behavior change intervention or not), and statistical significance of the main findings (at an alpha level of 0.05).
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.