What's in a title? An assessment of whether randomized controlled trial in a title means that it is one

In this study, we aimed to investigate whether studies published in orthodontic journals and titled as randomized clinical trials are truly randomized clinical trials. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of Titanium-13Zirconium versus Titanium Grade IV Small-Diameter Bone Level Implants in Edentulous Mandibles - Results from a 1-Year Observation Period

Background: The use of endosseous dental implants has become common practice for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients, and a two-implant overdenture has been recommended as the standard of care. The use of small-diameter implants may extend treatment options and reduce the necessity for bone augmentation. However, the mechanical strength of titanium is limited, so titanium alloys with greater tensile and fatigue strength may be preferable. Purpose: This randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter study investigated in a split-mouth model whether small-diameter implants made from Titanium-13Zirconium alloy (TiZr, Roxolid™) perform at least as well as Titanium Grade IV implants. Methods and Materials: Patients with an edentulous mandible received one TiZr and one Ti Grade IV small-diameter bone level implant (3.3 mm, SLActive®) in the interforaminal region. The site distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included change in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months post-insertion (primary), implant survival, success, soft tissue conditions, and safety (secondary). Results: Of 91 treated patients, 87 were available for the 12-month follow-up. Peri-implant bone level change (-0.3 ± 0.5 mm vs -0.3 ± 0.6 mm), plaque, and sulcus bleeding indices were not significantly different between TiZr and Ti Grade IV implants. Implant survival rates were 98.9 percent and 97.8 percent, success rates were 96.6 percent and 94.4 percent, respectively. Nineteen minor and no serious adverse events were related to the study devices. Conclusion: This study confirms that TiZr small-diameter bone level implants provide at least the same outcomes after 12 months as Ti Grade IV bone level implants. The improved mechanical properties of TiZr implants may extend implant therapy to more challenging clinical situations.

Impact of carotid plaque screening on smoking cessation and other cardiovascular risk factors: a randomized controlled trial

Screening of peripheral atherosclerosis is increasingly used, but few trials have examined its clinical impact. We aimed to assess whether carotid plaque screening helps smokers to improve their health behaviors and cardiovascular risk factors.

Postprandial effects of dark chocolate on portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis: results of a phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

In cirrhosis, hepatic endothelial dysfunction as a result of oxidative stress contributes to the postprandial increase in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG).

Orexin receptor antagonism, a new sleep-enabling paradigm: a proof-of-concept clinical trial

The orexin system is a key regulator of sleep and wakefulness. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study, 161 primary insomnia patients received either the dual orexin receptor antagonist almorexant, at 400, 200, 100, or 50 mg in consecutive stages, or placebo on treatment nights at 1-week intervals. The primary end point was sleep efficiency (SE) measured by polysomnography; secondary end points were objective latency to persistent sleep (LPS), wake after sleep onset (WASO), safety, and tolerability. Dose-dependent almorexant effects were observed on SE , LPS , and WASO . SE improved significantly after almorexant 400 mg vs. placebo (mean treatment effect 14.4%; P < 0.001). LPS (–18 min (P = 0.02)) and WASO (–54 min (P < 0.001)) decreased significantly at 400 mg vs. placebo. Adverse-event incidence was dose-related. Almorexant consistently and dose-dependently improved sleep variables. The orexin system may offer a new treatment approach for primary insomnia.

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.

The impact of a low-frequency chlorhexidine rinsing schedule on the subgingival microbiota (the TEETH clinical trial)

BACKGROUND: Information on the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) rinsing on the subgingival microbiota is limited. This study tested if intermittent CHX rinsing over 5 years had an impact on the subgingival microbiota. METHODS: Subgingival plaque samples were analyzed by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method in a double-blind randomized CHX rinse study. RESULTS: A total of 210 subjects were included. The mean age of the subjects was 71.7 (+/- 4.1) years, and 56.2% were women. Evidence of alveolar bone loss was found in 39% of subjects. Bacterial loads were not correlated significantly with probing depth. At year 5, subjects in the CHX rinse group with no evidence of bone loss presented with lower total bacterial counts than control subjects with no bone loss. The levels of the following bacteria were significantly lower in the CHX group: Lactobacillus acidophilus (P <0.05), Eikenella corrodens (P <0.05), Fusobacterium nucleatum sp. nucleatum (P <0.01), Treponema denticola (P <0.05), Leptotrichia buccalis (P <0.05), and Eubacterium saburreum (P <0.05). No differences in bacterial loads were found between CHX and control rinse subjects with alveolar bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: Older subjects with or without periodontitis carry a large variety of bacteria associated with periodontitis. Intermittent rinsing with CHX may provide a preventive benefit in reducing levels of bacteria but only in subjects without alveolar bone loss.

Randomized controlled trial on single dose steroid before thyroidectomy for benign disease to improve postoperative nausea, pain, and vocal function

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a single preoperative dose of steroid on thyroidectomy outcomes. BACKGROUND: Nausea, pain, and voice alteration frequently occur after thyroidectomy. Because steroids effectively reduce nausea and inflammation, a preoperative administration of steroids could improve these thyroidectomy outcomes. METHODS: Seventy-two patients (men = 20, women = 52) undergoing thyroidectomy for benign disease were included in this randomized, controlled, 2 armed (group D: 8 mg dexamethasone, n = 37; group C: 0.9% NaCl, n = 35), double-blinded study (clinical trial number NCT00619086). Anesthesia, surgical procedures, antiemetics, and analgesic treatments were standardized. Nausea (0-3), pain (visual analog scale), antiemetic and analgesic requirements, and digital voice recording were documented before and 4, 8, 16, 24, 36, and 48 hours after surgery. Patients were followed-up 30 days after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the 2 treatment groups. Nausea was pronounced in the first 16 hours postoperatively (scores were <0.3 and 0.8-1.0 for group D and C, respectively (P = 0.005)), and was significantly lower in group D compared with group C during the observation period (P = 0.001). Pain diminished within 48 hours after surgery (visual analog scale 20 and 35 in group D and C, respectively (P = 0.009)). Antiemetic and analgesic requirements were also significantly diminished. Changes in voice mean frequency were less prominent in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group (P = 0.015). No steroid-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: A preoperative single dose of steroid significantly reduced nausea, vomiting, and pain, and improved postoperative voice function within the first 48 hours (most pronounced within 16 hours) after thyroid resection; this strategy should be routinely applied in thyroidectomies.

Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A tapered implant with continuously changing threads purported to provide stable tissue support and allow immediate function has been developed. Treatment success and stabilization of supporting tissues over time require documentation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study was to evaluate changes in bone level and soft tissue behavior between the novel implant (NobelActive/NA) and a standard tapered implant (NobelReplace Tapered Groovy/NR) with regard to immediate function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 177 patients randomly allocated to 3 treatment groups (2 different test implant groups: NA Internal (n=117; internal connection) and External (n=82), and 1 standard treatment group, NR (n=126)) received 325 implants. Implants were placed into healed sites, and all but 6 implants were immediately nonocclusally loaded. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of treatment success, crestal bone levels, and soft tissue changes were performed at the time of placement and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Log-Rank test was used to analyze the differences in survival rate. Marginal bone level was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: One-year cumulative survival rates were comparable (96.6% for NA Internal; 96.3% for NA External; 97.6% for NR; P=.852; Log-Rank). Mean (SD) change in bone level was -0.95 mm (1.37) for NA Internal, -0.64 mm (0.97) for NA External, and -0.63 mm (1.18) for NR (P=.589; Kruskal-Wallis). Stable soft tissues and significantly increased papilla scores (P<.001; Wilcoxon signed-rank) were observed for all implant types. CONCLUSIONS: The novel implants showed high survival rates as well as stable bone and soft tissue levels after 1 year, and may be recommended for clinical use, even under immediate function.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Clinical trial design for orthodontists

High-quality research should form the basis of all clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials currently provide the gold standard for investigating the effectiveness of treatment interventions and these are increasingly being used in orthodontics. Here we discuss the reasons why this form of investigation provides the most useful evidence for assessing treatment outcome. The methods available to achieve true randomization, a fundamental component in the design of these trials, are also discussed. In addition, we focus on how to minimize bias in clinical research, not only during the design and management of a trial, but also when disseminating results. We focus on the importance of using control groups correctly and describe methods that are available to adequately power a trial. Finally, we emphasise the importance of accurate and transparent reporting, which facilitates correct communication and assessment of the evidence.

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).

Effectiveness of a calcium sodium phosphosilicate-containing prophylaxis paste in reducing dentine hypersensitivity immediately and 4 weeks after a single application: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

AIMS The aim of this single-site, randomized, controlled, double-blind, 3-arm parallel study was to determine the effectiveness of a prophylaxis paste containing 15% calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS; NovaMin(®) ) with and without fluoride in reducing dentine hypersensitivity immediately after a single application and 28 days following dental scaling and root planing. MATERIALS & METHODS Overall, 151 subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects received a scaling and root planing procedure followed by a final prophylaxis step using one of three different prophylaxis pastes: Test-A (15% NovaMin(®) and NaF), Test-B (15% NovaMin(®) ) and a control. Dentine hypersensitivity was assessed by tactile stimulus (Yeaple Probe(®) ) and by air blast (Schiff scale) at baseline, immediately after and 28 days after a prophylaxis procedure. One hundred and forty-nine subjects completed the study. RESULTS Subjects having received the test prophylaxis pastes showed statistically lower (anova, p < 0.05) dentine hypersensitivity compared with the control group immediately after the prophylaxis procedure (Yeaple Probe(®) : Test-A = 20.9 ± 12.6, Test-B = 22.7 ± 12.9, Control=11.2 ± 3.1; Schiff score: Test-A = 1.1 ± 0.6, Test-B = 1.1 ± 0.6, Control = 2.0 ± 0.7) and after 28 days (Yeaple probe: Test-A = 21.5 ± 11.9, Test-B = 20.6 ± 11.3, Control = 11.8 ± 6.0; Schiff score: Test-A = 1.0 ± 0.6, Test-B = 1.0 ± 0.6, Control = 2.0 ± 0.7). CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the single application of both fluoridated and non-fluoridated prophylaxis pastes containing 15% CSPS (NovaMin(®) ) provided a significant reduction of dentine hypersensitivity up to at least 28 days.

A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BILEVEL POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE DEVICE AND HIGH FLOW OXYGEN FOR PERSISTENT DYSPNEA IN

Background: Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom among patients with advanced cancer. The role of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and Vapotherm in the relief of dyspnea have not been well defined. We aimed to determine and to compare the efficacy of BIPAP and VapoTherm for cancer related dyspnea. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, we randomly assigned advanced cancer patients with persistent dyspnea >=3/10 to either Vapotherm for 2 hours followed by BiPAP for 2 hours, or BiPAP followed by Vaptherm. A variable washout period was instituted between interventions. The primary end point was change in numeric rating scale before and after each intervention. We planned to enroll 50 patients in total. Results: Among the 803 patients screened over the last 8 months, 62 (26%) were eligible, and 16 (2%) were enrolled so far. Five patients completed the entire study successfully, 4 discontinued the study prematurely due to prolonged relief of dyspnea, and 7 dropped out for various reasons, including inability to tolerate BiPAP (N=3), anxiety (N=2), fatigue (N=1) and pain requiring opioids (N=1). The median baseline numeric rating score for dyspnea was 7/10 (interquartile range (IQR) 5-8), and the median baseline Borg score was 4/10 (3-7). Interim analysis revealed that BiPAP was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -3 (N=10, IQR -6.3 to -1, p=0.007) and modified Borg score of -1 (N=10, IQR -3 to 0.3, p=0.058), while Vapotherm was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -2 (N=9, IQR -3 to -1, p=0.011) and modified Borg score of -2.5 (N=8, IQR -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.051). Among the 5 individuals who completed the entire study, 2 preferred Vapotherm, 2 favored BiPAP, and 1 liked both. The respiratory rate decreased and the oxygen saturation improved with both interventions. No significant toxicities were observed. Conclusions: We were successfully able to enroll patients onto this clinic trial. Our preliminary results suggest that BiPAP and Vapotherm are highly efficacious in providing relief for patients with persistent refractory dyspnea. A direct comparison of the two interventions will be done upon study completion. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.