Cited by 44Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Outcome reporting discrepancies between trial entries and published final reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials

Open access
Koufatzidou, Marianna, Koletsi, Despina, Fleming, Padhraig S, Polychronopoulou, Argy, Pandis, Nikolaos·2019·European Journal of Orthodontics

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify outcome-related discrepancies between registry trial entries and final published reports in orthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The percentage of registered orthodontic RCTs was also recorded. MATERIALS/METHOD: Five trial registries, ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (http://www.isrctn.com/), European Union Clinical Trials Register (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/), Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au/) and Clinical Trials Registry of India (www.ctri.nic.in/) were searched up to April 2018 in order to identify completed orthodontic RCTs. The unique trial identifier, the title and authors name were used to search for publications based on entries within Google (https://www.google.com), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.gr/) and MEDLINE via PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). Outcome reporting discrepancies and a number of other entry/publication characteristics were recorded including timing of registration, type of journal/publication, significance of the primary outcome in the final report. The number of trials registered among the total number of published RCTs in orthodontics was recorded within the time span assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four entries were identified for completed orthodontic RCTs, whereas 53 of those were related to published final reports. Outcome reporting discrepancies were ascertained for 47 per cent of publications (n = 2 5); discrepancies were more prevalent for non-primary outcomes (n = 21, 40 per cent). Only 16 per cent of the published orthodontic RCTs had been registered. LIMITATIONS: Only a subset of trial entries were assessed as these were related to publication records. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Registration of clinical trials in orthodontics remains far from universal. A significant level of outcome reporting discrepancy was observed within this subset of registered trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ejo/cjy046

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies in specific dental areas such as endodontics, orthodontics, and implantology found high rates of SOR.

    “studies in specific dental areas such as endodontics, orthodontics, and implantology found high rates of SOR (Koufatzidou et al. 2019; Sendyk et al. 2019; Tzanetakis and Koletsi 2021)”

    From Nonpublication and Selective Outcome Reporting of Oral Health Trials (2023) · cites this paper as Koufatzidou et al. 2019

  • This rate is consistent with SOR rates in endodontics (36.4%), implantology (55%), and orthodontics (47%).

    “This rate is consistent with SOR rates in endodontics (36.4%) (Tzanetakis and Koletsi 2021), implantology (55%) (Sendyk et al. 2019), and orthodontics (47%) (Koufatzidou et al. 2019).”

    From Nonpublication and Selective Outcome Reporting of Oral Health Trials (2023) · cites this paper as Koufatzidou et al. 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. The Lancet. (2017) Types of Article and Manuscript Requirements. http:// thelancet.com/lancet/information-for-authors/article-types-manuscript- requirements (21 February 2018, date last accessed).
  2. PLOS Medicine. (2017) Submission Guidelines. http://journals.plos. org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines (21 February 2018, date last accessed).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koufatzidou, M., Koletsi, D., Fleming, P. S., Polychronopoulou, A., & Pandis, N.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Koletsi, Despina
Venue
European Journal of Orthodontics
Published
2018-07-09
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
225-230
ISSN
  • 0141-5387 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2210
OpenAlex
W2849286502
Cited by
44
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Orthodontics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
clinical trial registration, clinical trial registries, publication characteristics, primary outcomes
MeSH terms
Humans, Orthodontics, Registries, Bibliometrics, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review