Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

Adjuvant treatment of premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: design of the TEXT and SOFT trials

OBJECTIVES In 2003 the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated the TEXT and SOFT randomized phase III trials to answer two questions concerning adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: 1-What is the role of aromatase inhibitors (AI) for women treated with ovarian function suppression (OFS)? 2-What is the role of OFS for women who remain premenopausal and are treated with tamoxifen? METHODS TEXT randomized patients to receive exemestane or tamoxifen with OFS. SOFT randomized patients to receive exemestane with OFS, tamoxifen with OFS, or tamoxifen alone. Treatment was for 5 years from randomization. RESULTS TEXT and SOFT successfully met their enrollment goals in 2011. The 5738 enrolled women had lower-risk disease and lower observed disease-free survival (DFS) event rates than anticipated. Consequently, 7 and 13 additional years of follow-up for TEXT and SOFT, respectively, were required to reach the targeted DFS events (median follow-up about 10.5 and 15 years). To provide timely answers, protocol amendments in 2011 specified analyses based on chronological time and median follow-up. To assess the AI question, exemestane + OFS versus tamoxifen + OFS, a combined analysis of TEXT and SOFT became the primary analysis (n = 4717). The OFS question became the primary analysis from SOFT, assessing the unique comparison of tamoxifen + OFS versus tamoxifen alone (n = 2045). The first reports are anticipated in mid- and late-2014. CONCLUSIONS We present the original designs of TEXT and SOFT and adaptations to ensure timely answers to two questions concerning optimal adjuvant endocrine treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Trial Registration TEXT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066703 SOFT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066690.

LY2109761, a novel transforming growth factor beta receptor type I and type II dual inhibitor, as a therapeutic approach to suppressing pancreatic cancer metastasis.

Most pancreatic cancer patients present with inoperable disease or develop metastases after surgery. Conventional therapies are usually ineffective in treating metastatic disease. It is evident that novel therapies remain to be developed. Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) plays a key role in cancer metastasis, signaling through the TGF-beta type I/II receptors (TbetaRI/II). We hypothesized that targeting TbetaRI/II kinase activity with the novel inhibitor LY2109761 would suppress pancreatic cancer metastatic processes. The effect of LY2109761 has been evaluated on soft agar growth, migration, invasion using a fibroblast coculture model, and detachment-induced apoptosis (anoikis) by Annexin V flow cytometric analysis. The efficacy of LY2109761 on tumor growth, survival, and reduction of spontaneous metastasis have been evaluated in an orthotopic murine model of metastatic pancreatic cancer expressing both luciferase and green fluorescence proteins (L3.6pl/GLT). To determine whether pancreatic cancer cells or the cells in the liver microenvironment were involved in LY2109761-mediated reduction of liver metastasis, we used a model of experimental liver metastasis. LY2109761 significantly inhibited the L3.6pl/GLT soft agar growth, suppressed both basal and TGF-beta1-induced cell migration and invasion, and induced anoikis. In vivo, LY2109761, in combination with gemcitabine, significantly reduced the tumor burden, prolonged survival, and reduced spontaneous abdominal metastases. Results from the experimental liver metastasis models indicate an important role for targeting TbetaRI/II kinase activity on tumor and liver microenvironment cells in suppressing liver metastasis. Targeting TbetaRI/II kinase activity on pancreatic cancer cells or the cells of the liver microenvironment represents a novel therapeutic approach to prevent pancreatic cancer metastasis.

Long-term survival after multidisciplinary management of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Actual 5-year survival rates of 10-18% have been reported for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC), but the use of multimodality therapy was uncommon in these series. We evaluated long-term survival and patterns of recurrence in patients treated for PC with contemporary staging and multimodality therapy. METHODS: We analyzed 329 consecutive patients with PC evaluated between 1990 and 2002 who underwent resection. Each received a multidisciplinary evaluation and a standard operative approach. Pre- or postoperative chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation were routine. Surgical specimens of 5-year survivors were re-reviewed. A multivariate model of factors associated with long-term survival was constructed. RESULTS: Patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (n = 302; 92%), distal (n = 20; 6%), or total pancreatectomy (n = 7; 2%). A total of 108 patients (33%) underwent vascular reconstruction, 301 patients (91%) received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, 157 specimens (48%) were node positive, and margins were microscopically positive in 52 patients (16%). Median overall survival and disease-specific survival was 23.9 and 26.5 months. Eighty-eight patients (27%) survived a minimum of 5 years and had a median overall survival of 11 years. Of these, 21 (24%) experienced recurrence, 7 (8%) after 5 years. Late recurrences occurred most frequently in the lungs, the latest at 6.7 years. Multivariate analysis identified disease-negative lymph nodes (P = .02) and no prior attempt at resection (P = 0.01) as associated with 5-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our 27% actual 5-year survival rate for patients with resected PC is superior to that previously reported, and it is influenced by our emphasis on detailed staging and patient selection, a standardized operative approach, and routine use of multimodality therapy.

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.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting.

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. CONCLUSION Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously.

Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines?

BACKGROUND PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines. METHODS Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated. RESULTS Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35). CONCLUSIONS Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.

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.

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

Systematic reviews of well-designed trials constitute a high level of scientific evidence and are important for medical decision making. Meta-analysis facilitates integration of the evidence using a transparent and systematic approach, leading to a broader interpretation of treatment effectiveness and safety than can be attained from individual studies. Traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparing just 2 interventions concurrently and cannot combine evidence concerning multiple treatments. A relatively recent extension of the traditional meta-analytical approach is network meta-analysis, which allows, under certain assumptions, the quantitative synthesis of all evidence under a unified framework and across a network of all eligible trials. Network meta-analysis combines evidence from direct and indirect information via common comparators; interventions can therefore be ranked in terms of the analyzed outcome. In this article, the network meta-analysis approach is introduced in a nontechnical manner using a worked example on the treatment effectiveness of conventional and self-ligating appliances.

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.

The timing of significant arch dimensional changes with fixed orthodontic appliances: data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES To identify the timing of significant arch dimensional increases during orthodontic alignment involving round and rectangular nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires and rectangular stainless steel (SS). A secondary aim was to compare the timing of changes occurring with conventional and self-ligating fixed appliance systems. METHODS In this non-primary publication, additional data from a multicenter randomised trial initially involving 96 patients, aged 16 years and above, were analysed. The main pre-specified outcome measures were the magnitude and timing of maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar dimensions. Each participant underwent alignment with a standard Damon (Ormco, Orange, CA) wire sequence for a minimum of 34 weeks. Blinding of clinicians and patients was not possible; however, outcome assessors and data analysts were kept blind to the appliance type during data analysis. RESULTS Complete data were obtained from 71 subjects. Significant arch dimensional changes were observed relatively early in treatment. In particular, changes in maxillary inter-first and second premolar dimensions occurred after alignment with an 0.014in. NiTi wire (P<0.05). No statistical differences in transverse dimensions were found between rectangular NiTi and working SS wires for each transverse dimension (P>0.05). Bracket type had no significant effect on the timing of the transverse dimensional changes. CONCLUSIONS Arch dimensional changes were found to occur relatively early in treatment, irrespective of the appliance type. Nickel-titanium wires may have a more profound effect on transverse dimensions than previously believed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE On the basis of this research orthodontic expansion may occur relatively early in treatment. Nickel-titanium wires may have a more profound effect on transverse dimensions than previously believed.

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvement.

A comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with surgical exposure and traction of maxillary impacted canines versus that without impactions.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Orthodontic management of maxillary canine impaction (MCI), including forced eruption, may result in significant root resorption; however, the association between MCI and orthodontically induced root resorption (OIRR) is not yet sufficiently established. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to comparatively evaluate the severity of OIRR of maxillary incisors in orthodontically treated patients with MCI. Additionally, impaction characteristics were associated with OIRR severity. SUBJECTS AND METHODS The sample comprised 48 patients undergoing fixed-appliance treatment-24 with unilateral/bilateral MCI and 24 matched controls without impaction. OIRR was calculated using pre- and post-operative panoramic tomograms. The orientation of eruption path, height, sector location, and follicle/tooth ratio of the impacted canine were also recorded. Mann-Whitney U-test and univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to test for the associations of interest. RESULTS Maxillary central left incisor underwent more OIRR in the impaction group (mean difference = 0.58mm, P = 0.04). Overall, the impaction group had 0.38mm more OIRR compared to the control (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.03, 0.74; P = 0.04). However, multivariate analysis demonstrated no difference in the amount of OIRR between impaction and non-impaction groups overall. A positive association between OIRR and initial root length was observed (95% CI: 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001). The severity of canine impaction was not found to be a significant predictor of OIRR. LIMITATIONS This study was a retrospective study and used panoramic tomograms for OIRR measurements. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that MCI is a weak OIRR predictor. Interpretation of the results needs caution due to the observational nature of the present study.