Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

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.

Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: a randomized clinical trial

The concept of platform switching has been introduced to implant dentistry based on observations of reduced peri-implant bone loss. However, randomized clinical trials are still lacking. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that platform switching has a positive impact on crestal bone-level changes.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

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.

A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept = 78; ad hoc = 64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval = 0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.67). LIMITATIONS The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application.

Clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in routine care: A propensity score based comparison between randomized controlled trials and clinical practice

Background: The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders has been demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigated whether for CBT similar effects can be expected under routine care conditions when the patients are comparable to those examined in RCTs. Method: N=574 CBT patients from an outpatient clinic were stepwise matched to the patients undergoing CBT in the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP). First, the exclusion criteria of the RCT were applied to the naturalistic sample of the outpatient clinic. Second, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the remaining naturalistic sample on the basis of baseline covariate distributions. Matched samples were then compared regarding treatment effects using effect sizes, average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and recovery rates. Results: CBT in the adjusted naturalistic subsample was as effective as in the RCT. However, treatments lasted significantly longer under routine care conditions. Limitations: The samples included only a limited amount of common predictor variables and stemmed from different countries. There might be additional covariates, which could potentially further improve the matching between the samples. Conclusions: CBT for depression in clinical practice might be equally effective as manual-based treatments in RCTs when they are applied to comparable patients. The fact that similar effects under routine conditions were reached with more sessions, however, points to the potential to optimize treatments in clinical practice with respect to their efficiency.

Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background There is concern that non-inferiority trials might be deliberately designed to conceal that a new treatment is less effective than a standard treatment. In order to test this hypothesis we performed a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials to assess the average effect of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments. Methods One hundred and seventy non-inferiority treatment trials published in 121 core clinical journals were included. The trials were identified through a search of PubMed (1991 to 20 February 2009). Combined relative risk (RR) from meta-analysis comparing experimental with standard treatments was the main outcome measure. Results The 170 trials contributed a total of 175 independent comparisons of experimental with standard treatments. The combined RR for all 175 comparisons was 0.994 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.978–1.010] using a random-effects model and 1.002 (95% CI 0.996–1.008) using a fixed-effects model. Of the 175 comparisons, experimental treatment was considered to be non-inferior in 130 (74%). The combined RR for these 130 comparisons was 0.995 (95% CI 0.983–1.006) and the point estimate favoured the experimental treatment in 58% (n = 76) and standard treatment in 42% (n = 54). The median non-inferiority margin (RR) pre-specified by trialists was 1.31 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1.18–1.59]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials the average RR comparing experimental with standard treatments was close to 1. The experimental treatments that gain a verdict of non-inferiority in published trials do not appear to be systematically less effective than the standard treatments. Importantly, publication bias and bias in the design and reporting of the studies cannot be ruled out and may have skewed the study results in favour of the experimental treatments. Further studies are required to examine the importance of such bias.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

Randomized clinical trial comparing percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder with medical treatment in patients with cryptogenic embolism (PC-Trial): rationale and design

Background Several studies have shown an association of cryptogenic stroke and embolism with patent foramen ovale (PFO), but the question how to prevent further events in such patients is unresolved. Options include antithrombotic treatment with warfarin or antiplatelet agents or surgical or endovascular closure of the PFO. The PC-Trial was set up to compare endovascular closure and best medical treatment for prevention of recurrent events. Methods The PC-Trial is a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of percutaneous closure of the PFO using the Amplatzer PFO occluder with best medical treatment in patients with cryptogenic embolism, i.e. mostly cryptogenic stroke. Warfarin for 6 months followed by antiplatelet agents is recommended as medical treatment. Randomization is stratified according to patients age (<45 versus ≥45 years), presence of atrial septal aneurysm (ASA yes or no) and number of embolic events before randomization (one versus more than one event). Primary endpoints are death, nonfatal stroke and peripheral embolism. Discussion patients were randomized in 29 centers of Europe, Canada, and Australia. Randomization started February 2000. Enrollment of 414 patients was completed in February 2009. All patients will be followed-up longitudinally. Follow-up is maintained until the last enrolled patient is beyond 2.5 years of follow-up (expected in 2011).

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.

Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002. METHODS: We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002). RESULTS: Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical research.

Periprocedural and late consequences of overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents: pooled analysis of five clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to determine the relative safety and efficacy of multiple (> or =2) overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Johnson ; Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey). BACKGROUND: Overlapping coronary stents are common. The periprocedural and late clinical and angiographic consequences of overlapped coronary stents are not clearly defined, particularly for drug-eluting stents. METHODS: All patients enrolled into five clinical trials of the SES were analyzed. Three of these trials were prospective randomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-randomized trials of SES-treated patients with historical controls. All clinical and angiographic outcomes in overlap-stent-treated patients were compared by stent type and with single-stent-treated patients for the same stent device. RESULTS: In all, 575 patients with stent overlap (337 SES, 238 BMS) and 1,162 patients with single stents (697 SES, 465 BMS) were analyzed. Stent overlap was associated with a greater late lumen loss in stent and more frequent angiographic restenosis regardless of stent type. Among overlap-stent-treated patients, the SES provided similar magnitude of restenosis benefit as observed for single-stent-treated patients. Overlapped SES was not associated with an increase in myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of SES overlap, when required, is both safe and efficacious in reducing restenosis with no increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction or major adverse cardiovascular events, when compared with a bare metal coronary stent prosthesis.