Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: A network meta-analysis in practice

Pandis, Nikolaos; Fleming, Padhraig S.; Spineli, Loukia M.; Salanti, Georgia

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.016

Cited by 34 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A review of meta-analyses published since January 2013 in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics showed that the sample sizes of studies included in the meta-analyses ranged widely, depending on the nature of the meta-analysis and the topic studied. [21][22][23][24][25] For example, the sample sizes of the studies included in the meta-analysis conducted by Hua et al 22 to examine the prevalence of peg-shaped maxillary permanent lateral incisors ranged from a low of 110 subjects to a high of 12,250 subjects, and the metaanalysis by Fleming et al 24 to examine the effects of different curing lights in orthodontic bonding included studies that had sample sizes ranging from 20 to 83 (Table VII). Koletsi et al 26 examined sample sizes in orthodontic clinical trials and found that only 29.5% of the studies reported on complete sample-size calculations, and an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted in only 13% of the studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

Allareddy

Rampa

Masoud

et al. 2014

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

Allareddy

Rampa

Masoud

et al. 2014

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…So for r=0.8, N paired /N parallel is 0.2/2=0.1 (10%). Reported correlation coefficients in ophthalmology, 46 dermatology, 47 and orthodontics 48 were 0.80, 0.80, and 0.50, respectively. Balk et al 49 calculated correlation coefficients for 811 within group correlation values from 123 studies with 281 study groups.…”

Section: Item 7a: Sample Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

Pandis

Chung

Scherer

et al. 2017

BMJ

Self Cite

194

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence shows that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. The lack of transparent reporting impedes readers from judging the reliability and validity of trial findings and researchers from extracting information for systematic reviews and results in research waste. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of RCTs. Within person trials are used for conditions that can affect two or more body sites, and are a useful and efficient tool because the comparisons between interventions are within people. Such trials are most commonly conducted in ophthalmology, dentistry, and dermatology. The reporting of within person trials has, however, been variable and incomplete, hindering their use in clinical decision making and by future researchers. This document presents the CONSORT extension to within person trials. It aims to facilitate the reporting of these trials. It extends 16 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and introduces a modified flowchart and baseline table to enhance transparency. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CONSORT within person checklist items are provided.

show abstract

“…Differences between the two studies can be explained by differences in knowledge of epidemiology, statistics, and evidence-based study design between the fields of orthodontics and general medicine (Polychronopoulou et al 2011). Alternatively, these differences could be explained by the fact that the study of Tsugimoto et al [2017] was limited to high-impact medical journals, which might maintain stricter peer review procedures and might be of higher methodological quality (Fleming et al, 2014). In any case, registration of systematic reviews in orthodontics was generally limited, which can have serious implications in the transparency of evidence synthesis procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?

Sideri

Papageorgiou

Eliades

2017

Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to assess the registration of orthodontic systematic reviews in PROSPERO. METHOD: Seven databases were searched for orthodontic systematic reviews published in 2012-2016. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, descriptive statistics, followed by chi-square/Fisher exact tests were calculated. Finally, bivariable/multivariable regression with relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used. RESULTS: A total of 182 orthodontic systematic reviews were identified, 37 (20.3%) of which were registered in PROSPERO, with registration rates ranging from 4.3% in 2012 to 37.0% in 2016. Differences in review registration were found according to publication year, geographic origin, multicentre status, funding, and journal category. After controlling for confounders, each additional year was associated with increased registration probability (RR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.19-1.93). Reviews from South America were more likely to be registered than reviews from Europe (RR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.06-2.11). Finally, reviews published in orthodontic specialty journals were more likely to be registered than reviews in general dentistry journals (RR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.02-3.49). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori, although improvement signs have been seen since the initiation of PROSPERO.

show abstract

Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: A network meta-analysis in practice

Cited by 34 publications

References 38 publications

Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

Overview of registered studies in orthodontics: Evaluation of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About