Cited by 40Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Methods, transparency and reporting of clinical trials in orthodontics and periodontics

Open access
Papageorgiou, Spyridon N, Antonoglou, Georgios N, Martin, Conchita, Eliades, Theodore·2019·Journal of Orthodontics

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the methods, reporting and transparency of clinical trials in orthodontics and compare them to the field of periodontics, as a standard within dentistry. Design/setting: Cross-sectional bibliographic study Methods: A total of 300 trials published in 2017–2018 and evenly distributed in orthodontics and periodontics were selected, assessed and analysed statistically to explore key aspects of the conduct and reporting of orthodontic clinical trials compared to trials in periodontics. Results: Several aspects are often neglected in orthodontic and periodontic trials and could be improved upon, including use of statistical expertise (22.3% of assessed trials), blinding of outcome assessors (62.3%), prospective trial registration (12.0%), adequate sample size calculation (35.7%), adherence to CONSORT (14.3%) and open data sharing (4.3%). The prevalence of statistically significant findings among orthodontic and periodontic trials was 62.3%, which was significantly associated with several methodological traits like statistician involvement (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3–0.9), blind outcome assessor (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.2–1.0), lack of prospective trial registration (OR = 2.8; 95% CI = 1.3–5.9) and non-adherence to CONSORT (OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.3–15.8). Conclusions: Although trials in orthodontics seem to be significantly worse compared to periodontics in aspects like trial registration, adherence to CONSORT and declaration of competing interests or financial support, their methods do seem to have improved considerably in recent years.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1465312519842315

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The findings align with previous biomedical and dental research, which reported the presence of more articles with statement of conflict of interest and funding than data and code sharing and protocol registration.

    “Our findings align with previous biomedical and dental research, which reported the presence of more articles with statement of conflict of interest and funding than data and code sharing and protocol registration [27–30].”
  • Data and code sharing has been the least reported aspect in many studies.

    “and data and code sharing has been the least reported aspect in many studies [25–30, 41].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Papageorgiou, S. N., Antonoglou, G. N., Martin, C., & Eliades, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
  • BIOCRAN (Craniofacial Biology: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics) Research Group, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author
Papageorgiou, Spyridon N
Venue
Journal of Orthodontics
Published
2019-05-08
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
101-109
ISSN
  • 1465-3125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3133
OpenAlex
W2944758021
Cited by
40
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Orthodontics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, 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
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
trial reporting quality, orthodontics, periodontics, clinical trial registration, sample size determination, statistical expertise, conflict of interest disclosure, open data sharing, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Cross-Sectional Studies, Orthodontics, Periodontics, Prospective Studies, Odds Ratio

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