Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials

Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 46, Issue 1_suppl, 2019, Pages 9-12

  Papageorgiou, Spyridon N ^a   Eliades, Theodore ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

clinical trials of orthodontic treatment and or materials; laboratory trials of orthodontic materials (including bond strength); publication ethics; Systematic reviews and meta analyses

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; ORTHODONTIC PROCEDURE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ORTHODONTICS;

ORTHODONTICS;

EID: 85064036167     PISSN: 14653125     EISSN: 14653133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1465312519842322     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Al-Moghrabi D Tsichlaki A Pandis N et al. (2018) Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding. Progress in Orthodontics 19: 16.
2. Cappelleri JC Ioannidis JP Schmid CH et al. (1996). Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? Journal of the American Medical Association 276: 1332–1338.
3. Ioannidis JP (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Quarterly 94: 485–514.
4. Bearn DR Alharbi F (2015) Reporting of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature from 2008 to 2012: observational study of published reports in four major journals. Journal of Orthodontics 42: 186–191.
5. Chalmers I Bracken MB Djulbegovic B et al. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 156–165.
6. Clarke M Hopewell S Chalmers I (2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376: 20–21.
7. Garner P Hopewell S Chandler J et al. (2016) Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. British Medical Journal 354: i3507.
8. Glasziou P Djulbegovic B Burls A (2006). Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet 367: 2057–2058.
9. Greene LE Bearn DR (2013) Setting up a randomized clinical trial in the UK: approvals and process. Journal of Orthodontics 40: 104–111.
10. Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE et al. (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 336: 924–926.
11. Higgins JPT Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 (updated 2011 Mar). Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed 5 February 2018).
12. Ioannidis JP (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294: 218–228.
13. Koletsi D Spineli LM Lempesi E et al. (2016) Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review. European Journal of Orthodontics 38: 308–312.
14. Papageorgiou SN Cobourne MT (2018) Data sharing in orthodontic research. Journal of Orthodontics 45: 1–3.
15. Papageorgiou SN Xavier GM Cobourne MT et al. (2018) Registered trials report less beneficial treatment effects than unregistered ones: a meta-epidemiological study in orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 100: 44–52.
16. Papageorgiou SN Xavier GM Cobourne MT. (2015) Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68: 1512–1522.
17. Papageorgiou SN (2014) Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II–Is all that glitters gold? Journal of Orthodontics 41: 327–336.
18. Patsopoulos NA Analatos AA Ioannidis JP (2005) Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 2362–2366.
19. Seehra J Pandis N Fleming PS (2017) Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study. Progress in Orthodontics 18: 14.
20. Sideri S Papageorgiou SN Eliades T (2017) Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? Journal of Orthodontics 44: 249–255.