Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?

被引:4
作者
Patel, Kishan [1 ]
Cobourne, Martyn T. [3 ]
Pandis, Nikolaos [2 ]
Seehra, Jadbinder [3 ]
机构
[1] Kings Coll London, Kings Coll Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Fac Dent Oral & Craniofacial Sci, Dept Orthodont,Fac Dent, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, England
[2] Univ Bern, Dent Sch, Med Fac, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Bern, Switzerland
[3] Kings Coll London, Guys & St Thomas NHS Fdn Trust, Ctr Craniofacial Dev & Regenerat, Fac Dent Oral & Craniofacial Sci,Guys Hosp, London SE1 9RT, England
关键词
Orthodontics; Systematic reviews; Interventional studies; Research waste; SPIRIT; CONSORT; CLINICAL-TRIALS; RELEVANT EVIDENCE; WASTE; BEGIN; END;
D O I
10.1186/s40510-021-00395-z
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored. Material and methods Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report. Results 301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71; p = 0.003). Conclusions A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
    Chalmers, Iain
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) : 86 - 89
  • [2] Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations
    Chan, An-Wen
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    [J]. TRIALS, 2018, 19
  • [3] SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials
    Chan, An-Wen
    Tetzlaff, Jennifer M.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Laupacis, Andreas
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    Krleza-Jeric, Karmela
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Mann, Howard
    Dickersin, Kay
    Berlin, Jesse A.
    Dore, Caroline J.
    Parulekar, Wendy R.
    Summerskill, William S. M.
    Groves, Trish
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    Sox, Harold C.
    Rockhold, Frank W.
    Rennie, Drummond
    Moher, David
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 158 (03) : 200 - +
  • [4] Five questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials
    Clark, Timothy
    Davies, Hugh
    Mansmann, Ulrich
    [J]. TRIALS, 2014, 15
  • [5] Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals - Islands in search of continents?
    Clarke, M
    Chalmers, I
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03): : 280 - 282
  • [6] Clarke M., 2013, Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society, V24, P145
  • [7] Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report
    Clarke, Mike
    Hopewell, Sally
    Chalmers, Iain
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 2007, 100 (04) : 187 - 190
  • [8] Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting
    Clarke, Mike
    Hopewell, Sally
    Chalmers, Iain
    [J]. LANCET, 2010, 376 (9734) : 20 - 21
  • [9] Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials
    De Meulemeester, Julie
    Fedyk, Mark
    Jurkovic, Lucas
    Reaume, Michael
    Dowlatshahi, Dar
    Stotts, Grant
    Shamy, Michel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 97 : 20 - 25
  • [10] Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
    Glasziou, Paul
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Bossuyt, Patrick
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Clarke, Mike
    Julious, Steven
    Michie, Susan
    Moher, David
    Wager, Elizabeth
    [J]. LANCET, 2014, 383 (9913) : 267 - 276