Objectives
This study evaluates the selective outcome reporting (SOR) in clinical trials on antibiotic use in third molar surgeries. It explores how SOR may bias results and affect systematic reviews, potentially leading to misinterpretations of intervention efficacy.
Materials and Methods
A search was conducted on "ClinicalTrials.gov" and the "Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials" using the terms "third molar" and "antibiotics" up to October 2024. Two independent researchers selected eligible clinical trials. Data were extracted from registered protocols and corresponding publications. Discrepancies were analysed using established criteria, and the risk of bias was assessed with Risk of Bias2.
Results
Discrepancies between protocols and publications were found in 83.3% of cases, affecting outcomes in 58.3% of studies. SOR significantly influenced results in studies with three or more discrepancies. Seventy percent of studies assess pain post-antibiotic therapy; of those, 50% found significant results. Only 30% of studies showed significant reductions in trismus and edema with antibiotic use. Risk of bias varied significantly across studies.
Conclusions
The high rate of selective reporting stresses the need for transparent studies to clarify the role of antibiotics in the perioperative period. Researchers should adhere to best clinical practices, including protocol registration, accurate sample size calculations, and precision in reporting. Journals and reviewers must prioritize transparency to reduce bias and improve research quality.
Clinical Relevance
This study emphasizes the impact of SOR in clinical trials using antibiotics in third molar surgery. Clinicians should be more cautious in reading evidence based on randomized clinical trials with SORs.