Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it

Randomization is a key step in reducing selection bias during the treatment allocation phase in randomized clinical trials. The process of randomization follows specific steps, which include generation of the randomization list, allocation concealment, and implementation of randomization. The phenomenon in the dental and orthodontic literature of characterizing treatment allocation as random is frequent; however, often the randomization procedures followed are not appropriate. Randomization methods assign, at random, treatment to the trial arms without foreknowledge of allocation by either the participants or the investigators thus reducing selection bias. Randomization entails generation of random allocation, allocation concealment, and the actual methodology of implementing treatment allocation randomly and unpredictably. Most popular randomization methods include some form of restricted and/or stratified randomization. This article introduces the reasons, which make randomization an integral part of solid clinical trial methodology, and presents the main randomization schemes applicable to clinical trials in orthodontics.

Adjunctive corticosteroids for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with HIV-infection

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP) remains the most common opportunistic infection in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Among patients with HIV infection and PCP the mortality rate is 10 to 20% during the initial infection and increases substantially with the need for mechanical ventilation. It was suggested that in these patients corticosteroids adjunctive to standard treatment for PCP could prevent the need for mechanical ventilation and decrease mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of adjunctive corticosteroids on overall mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in HIV-infected patients with PCP and substantial hypoxemia (arterial oxygen partial pressure <70 mmHg or alveolar-arterial gradient >35 mmHg on room air). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline (January 1980-December 2004), EMBASE (January 1985-December 2004) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004) without language restrictions to identify randomised controlled trials that compared adjunctive corticosteroids to control in HIV-infected patients with PCP. We further reviewed the reference lists from previously published overviews, we searched UptoDate version 2005 and Clinical Evidence Concise (Issue 12, 2004), contacted experts of the field, and searched reference lists of identified publications for citations of additional relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were considered eligible for this review if they compared corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in HIV-infected patients with PCP in addition to baseline treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, pentamidine or dapsone-trimethoprim, used random allocation, and reported mortality data. We excluded trials in patients with no or mild hypoxemia (arterial oxygen partial pressure >70 mmHg or an alveolar-arterial gradient <35 mmHg on room air) and trials with a follow-up of less than 30 days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of reviewers independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from each primary study. We pooled treatment effects across studies and calculated a weighted average risk ratio of overall mortality in the treatment and control groups by using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios for overall mortality for adjunctive corticosteroids were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98) at 1 month and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94) at 3-4 months of follow-up. To prevent 1 death, numbers needed to treat are 9 patients in a setting without highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) available, and 23 patients with HAART available. Only the 3 largest trials provided data on the need for mechanical ventilation with a risk ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.20-0.73) in favour of adjunctive corticosteroids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number and size of trials investigating adjunctive corticosteroids for HIV-infected patients with PCP is small, but evidence from this review suggests a beneficial effect for patients with substantial hypoxemia.

Curing lights for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION Light cure of resin-based adhesives is the mainstay of orthodontic bonding. In recent years, alternatives to conventional halogen lights offering reduced curing time and the potential for lower attachment failure rates have emerged. The relative merits of curing lights in current use, including halogen-based lamps, light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and plasma arc lights, have not been analyzed systematically. In this study, we reviewed randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials to assess the risks of attachment failure and bonding time in orthodontic patients in whom brackets were cured with halogen lights, LEDs, or plasma arc systems. METHODS Multiple electronic database searches were undertaken, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL. Language restrictions were not applied. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts, and Thesis database. Search terms included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, single blind method, orthodontics, LED, halogen, bond, and bracket. Authors of primary studies were contacted as required, and reference lists of the included studies were screened. RESULTS Randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials directly comparing conventional halogen lights, LEDs, or plasma arc systems involving patients with full arch, fixed, or bonded orthodontic appliances (not banded) with follow-up periods of a minimum of 6 months were included. Using predefined forms, 2 authors undertook independent extraction of articles; disagreements were resolved by discussion. The assessment of the risk of bias of the randomized controlled trials was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; 2 were excluded because of high risk of bias. In the comparison of bond failure risk with halogen lights and plasma arc lights, 1851 brackets were included in both groups. Little statistical heterogeneity was observed in this analysis (I(2) = 4.8%; P = 0.379). There was no statistical difference in bond failure risk between the groups (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.23; prediction intervals, 0.54, 1.56). Similarly, no statistical difference in bond failure risk was observed in the meta-analysis comparing halogen lights and LEDs (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64-1.44; prediction intervals, 0.07, 13.32). The pooled estimates from both comparisons were OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74-1.17; and prediction intervals, 0.69, 1.17. CONCLUSIONS There is no evidence to support the use of 1 light cure type over another based on risk of attachment failure.

The effectiveness of laceback ligatures during initial orthodontic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lacebacks may be used to limit unwanted incisor proclination during initial orthodontic alignment; however, their use has not met with universal approval. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence in relation to the effectiveness of lacebacks in controlling incisor position during initial alignment. Electronic database searches of published literature (MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and IBECS) and unpublished literature were performed. Search terms used included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, orthodontics, and laceback. Data were extracted using custom forms. Risk of bias assessment was made using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was also assessed using GRADE. Mean differences in incisor inclination and antero-posterior changes in incisor and molar position during alignment were calculated. Two studies involving 97 participants were found to be at low risk of bias and were included in the quantitative synthesis. The random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of lacebacks was associated with 0.5 mm greater posterior movement of the incisors during alignment; this finding was of limited clinical importance and statistically non-significant [95 per cent confidence interval (CI): -1.25, 0.25, P = 0.19]. Little difference (0.46 mm) was also found between laceback and non-laceback groups with regards to mesial molar movement (95 per cent CI: -0.33, 1.24, P = 0.26). According to the GRADE assessment, the overall quality of evidence relating to the use of lacebacks was high. There is no evidence to support the use of lacebacks for the control of the sagittal position of the incisors during initial orthodontic alignment.

Adjudication-related processes are underreported and lack standardization in clinical trials of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Although the use of an adjudication committee (AC) for outcomes is recommended in randomized controlled trials, there are limited data on the process of adjudication. We therefore aimed to assess whether the reporting of the adjudication process in venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials meets existing quality standards and which characteristics of trials influence the use of an AC. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003, to June 1, 2012, for randomized controlled trials on VTE. We abstracted information about characteristics and quality of trials and reporting of adjudication processes. We used stepwise backward logistic regression model to identify trial characteristics independently associated with the use of an AC. RESULTS We included 161 trials. Of these, 68.9% (111 of 161) reported the use of an AC. Overall, 99.1% (110 of 111) of trials with an AC used independent or blinded ACs, 14.4% (16 of 111) reported how the adjudication decision was reached within the AC, and 4.5% (5 of 111) reported on whether the reliability of adjudication was assessed. In multivariate analyses, multicenter trials [odds ratio (OR), 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7, 27.8], use of a data safety-monitoring board (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 11.6), and VTE as the primary outcome (OR, 5.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 19.4) were associated with the use of an AC. Trials without random allocation concealment (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.8) and open-label trials (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0) were less likely to report an AC. CONCLUSION Recommended processes of adjudication are underreported and lack standardization in VTE-related clinical trials. The use of an AC varies substantially by trial characteristics.

Effects of weight on blood pressure at rest and during exercise.

Body weight (BW) and blood pressure (BP) have a close relationship, which has been accounted for by hormonal changes. No previous study has evaluated the effect of wearing an external weight vest on BP to determine whether there is a simple mechanism between BW and BP. Seventeen healthy volunteers underwent weight reduction (WR) through caloric restriction. Before and after WR, BW, body fat percentage and BP at rest and during exercise were measured. Before and after WR, exercise testing was performed twice with the random allocation of a weight vest (10 kg) during one of the tests. Linear regression was used to detect independent associations between BP and the weight vest, BW and body fat percentage. BW decreased from 89.4 ± 15.4 kg to 79.1 ± 14.0 kg following WR (P<0.001). WR led to significant decreases in BP at rest (from 130.0/85.9 mm Hg to 112.5/77.8 mm Hg, P<0.001 for systolic and diastolic BPs) and during exercise. The weight vest significantly increased BP at rest (to 136.1/90.7 mm Hg before and 125.8/84.6 mm Hg after WR) and during exercise. Linear regression analysis identified an independent association between the weight vest and BP (P=0.006 for systolic BP and P=0.009 for diastolic BP at rest). This study demonstrates that wearing an external weight vest has immediate effects on BP at rest and during exercise independent of BW or body fat. More research is needed to understand the physiological mechanisms between weight and BP.

What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE To determine if adequacy of randomisation and allocation concealment is associated with changes in effect sizes (ES) when comparing physical therapy (PT) trials with and without these methodological characteristics. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS A random sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses in the PT discipline were identified. INTERVENTION Data extraction including assessments of random sequence generation and allocation concealment was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between sequence generation, and allocation concealment and ES, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES association between random sequence generation and allocation concealment and ES in PT trials. RESULTS 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analysing 44 622 patients contributed to this study. Adequate random sequence generation and appropriate allocation concealment were accomplished in only 39.7% and 11.5% of PT trials, respectively. Although trials with inappropriate allocation concealment tended to have an overestimate treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate concealment of allocation, the difference was non-statistically significant (ES=0.12; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.30). When pooling our results with those of Nuesch et al, we obtained a pooled statistically significant value (ES=0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26). There was no difference in ES in trials with appropriate or inappropriate random sequence generation (ES=0.02; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs in PT area, systematic reviewers and clinicians implementing research into practice should pay attention to these biases since they could exaggerate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains as primary analysis and/or in combination with less restrictive analyses. Authors and editors should make sure that allocation concealment and random sequence generation are properly reported in trial reports.