Reporting of statistical results in prosthodontic and implantology journals: p values or confidence intervals?

PURPOSE Confidence intervals (CIs) are integral to the interpretation of the precision and clinical relevance of research findings. The aim of this study was to ascertain the frequency of reporting of CIs in leading prosthodontic and dental implantology journals and to explore possible factors associated with improved reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were accessed, covering the years 2005 to 2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Dentistry. Articles were screened and the reporting of CIs and P values recorded. Other information including study design, region of authorship, involvement of methodologists, and ethical approval was also obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with reporting of CIs. RESULTS Interrater agreement for the data extraction performed was excellent (kappa = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89). CI reporting was limited, with mean reporting across journals of 14%. CI reporting was associated with journal type, study design, and involvement of a methodologist or statistician. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of CI in implant dentistry and prosthodontic journals requires improvement. Improved reporting will aid appraisal of the clinical relevance of research findings by providing a range of values within which the effect size lies, thus giving the end user the opportunity to interpret the results in relation to clinical practice.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.

Exploring the publications in three major orthodontic journals: a comparative analysis of two 5-year periods.

OBJECTIVE To analyze the types of articles and authorship characteristics of three orthodontic journals--American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO)--published between 2008 and 2012 and to assess the differences in content within this period and an earlier period of 1998 to 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS Each journal's content was accessed through the web edition. From each article, the following parameters were recorded: article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, source of article (referring to the first author's affiliation), and geographic origin. Descriptive statistics were performed and selected parameters were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test for independence at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS Review of differences between the two periods showed that the number of publications was almost double. The percentages of multi-authored articles increased. Fewer studies derived from the United States/Canada and European Union countries. Increases for articles from non-European Union countries, Asia, and other countries were found. Characteristics of the second period showed that the EJO and AO published more research articles, whereas the AJODO regularly published case reports and other articles. Approximately 75% of all studies derived from orthodontic departments. CONCLUSIONS The publications from 1998-2002 and 2008-2012 were significantly different both in terms of numbers and characteristics. Within 2008-2012 there were notable differences between the three journals concerning the type and origin of the publications.

An Assessment of the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trial Reports Published in Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry Journals

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in the field of prosthodontic and implant dentistry (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry) were hand-searched for RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS From the 3,667 articles screened, a total of 147 RCTs were identified and included. The number of published RCTs increased with time. The overall distribution of a high risk of bias assessment varied across the domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: 8% for random sequence generation, 18% for allocation concealment, 41% for masking, 47% for blinding of outcome assessment, 7% for incomplete outcome data, 12% for selective reporting, and 41% for other biases. CONCLUSION The distribution of high risk of bias for RCTs published in the selected prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals varied among journals and ranged from 8% to 47%, which can be considered as substantial.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals

The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implantology journals. Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were searched for RCTs, covering the years 2005-2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry and Journal of Dentistry. The reporting quality was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement checklist. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics followed by univariable and multivariable examination of statistical associations (α = 0·05). A total of 147 RCTs were identified with a mean CONSORT score of 69·4 (s.d. = 9·7). Significant differences were found among journals with the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation achieving the highest score (80·6, s.d. = 5·5) followed by Clinical Oral Implants Research (73·7, s.d. = 8·3). Involvement of a statistician/methodologist was significantly associated with increased CONSORT scores. Overall, the reporting quality of RCTs in major prosthodontic and implantology journals requires improvement. This is of paramount importance considering that optimal reporting of RCTs is an important prerequisite for clinical decision-making.

Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?

BACKGROUND Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. METHODS Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. CONCLUSIONS Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.