Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectivesTo characterize features of the current orthodontic literature.Methods and MaterialsAll research articles published in 2020 (N = 350) in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and the European Journal of Orthodontics were categorized on 48 features such as type of study (domain of generalization, subjects, and research design), analytical tools (statistical tests, power and normality of data, consistency of measurement, management of covariables, and corrections of multiple independent tests), and reporting characteristics. Consistency of the coding was high (κ > .990).ResultsThe “most typical” article was a cohort study reporting multiple patient outcomes at a single treatment location. Soundness of analyses was uneven, with about half providing information on power or normality of the data and consistency of measurement. Few articles addressed covariables or adjusted for multiple tests of independent outcomes. Photos and flow charts were commonly used to explain methods, and results were presented in multiple formats. There was a clear association between design and reporting characteristics and type of study for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and case reports. There were small but consistent differences across the three journals.ConclusionsThe quality of the orthodontic research literature has advanced at an uneven pace, and this review identifies areas that could be strengthened. Substantial gaps remain in achieving accepted standards for randomized controlled trials and opportunities exist for better understanding measures of effect through design and analysis using regression techniques to identify sources of variance.
Publisher
The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation)
Reference22 articles.
1. Eliades T, Turpin DL. Conflict of interest: always report it, and if in doubt, ask. Amer J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2008;134(3): 327–328.
2. Rapani A, Lombardi T, Berten F, Del Lupo V, Di Lenardo R, Stacchi C. Retracted publication and their citation in dental literature: a systematic review. Clin Exper Dent Res. 2020;6(4): 383–390.
3. Bearn DR, Alharbi F. Reporting of clinical trials in the orthodontic literation from 2008 to 2012: observational study of published reports in four major journals. J Orthod. 2015;42(3): 180–191.
4. Chen Y, Hua F, Mei Y, Thiruvenkatachun B, Riley P, He H. Characteristics and level of evidence of clinical studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals. J Evid Based Pract. 2019;19(3): 273–282.
5. Flint HE, Harrison JE. How well do reports of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature comply with the CONSORT statement? J Orthod . 2010;37(4): 250–261.