Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Improvements in Implant Dentistry over the Last Decade: Comparison of Survival and Complication Rates in Older and Newer Publications

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to assess and compare the survival and complication rates of implant-supported prostheses reported in studies published in the year 2000 and before, to those reported in studies published after the year 2000. Materials and Methods: Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify 139 prospective and retrospective studies on implant-supported prostheses. The included studies were divided in two groups: a group of 31 older studies published in the year 2000 or before, and a group of 108 newer studies published after the year 2000. Survival and complication rates were calculated using Poisson regression models, and multivariable robust Poisson regression was used to formally compare the outcomes of older and newer studies. Results: The 5-year survival rate of implant-supported prostheses was significantly increased in newer studies compared with older studies. The overall survival rate increased from 93.5% to 97.1%. The survival rate for cemented prostheses increased from 95.2% to 97.9%; for screw-retained reconstruction, from 77.6% to 96.8%; for implant-supported single crowns, from 92.6% to 97.2%; and for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), from 93.5% to 96.4%. The incidence of esthetic complications decreased in more recent studies compared with older ones, but the incidence of biologic complications was similar. The results for technical complications were inconsistent. There was a significant reduction in abutment or screw loosening by implant-supported FDPs. On the other hand, the total number of technical complications and the incidence of fracture of the veneering material was significantly increased in the newer studies. To explain the increased rate of complications, minor complications are probably reported in more detail in the newer publications. Conclusions: The results of the present systematic review demonstrated a positive learning curve in implant dentistry, represented in higher survival rates and lower complication rates reported in more recent clinical studies. The incidence of esthetic, biologic, and technical complications, however, is still high. Hence, it is important to identify these complications and their etiology to make implant treatment even more predictable in the future.

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.