Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study

AIM To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined. RESULTS A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (β-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances). CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Background: Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results: A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions: Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste. Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Knowledge synthesis; Orthodontics; PRISMA ScR; Scoping Review

Publication bias in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. What factors affect statistical significance of outcomes?

OBJECTIVES To record the proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting significant (versus non- significant) primary outcomes, published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. METHODS We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021 in the two journals with the highest impact factors (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) from each of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/ Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Paediatric Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of significant/ non- significant findings reported for the primary outcomes under study, while a range of characteristics such as: journal, year of publication, impact factor, funding, registration and others, were tested for associations. RESULTS A total of 474 RCTs were identified and included, with the majority reporting statistically significant outcomes (321/474; 67.7%). The multivariable model revealed significant effects of predictors related to specialty domain (p = 0.01), continent (p = 0.003) and registration (p = 0.004). Compared to Periodontology, RCTs published in Endodontics (OR= 0.40; 95%CIs: 0.22, 0.76) and Orthodontics (OR= 0.41; 95%CIs: 0.23, 0.74) were less likely to present statistically significant effects. There was strong evidence that registered trials presented lower odds of reporting statistically significant findings (OR= 0.52; 95%CIs: 0.34, 0.81). CONCLUSIONS The entirety of dentistry domains demonstrated preferential publication practices of outcomes considered as "successful" and statistically significant, with domains such as Orthodontics and Endodontics being more balanced. Trial non- registration is still prevalent and associated with reporting of statistically significant effects. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The findings of this empirical report bring attention to the interpretation of Systematic Reviews (SRs) conclusions. These largely depend on the availability and nature of outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on a topic, which may impact on the synthesized estimate of a pooled effect and its direction

Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Abstract Background Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste

Use of quality assessment tools within systematic reviews in orthodontics during the last decade: looking for a threshold

Summary Objective To record the prevalence and extent of use of quality assessment/ risk of bias tools in orthodontic systematic reviews and to identify whether systematic reviews authors stipulated a threshold during the evaluation process of the primary studies included in systematic reviews, published across the previous decade and until now. Associations with publication characteristics including the journal of publication, year, the inclusion of a meta-analysis, design of primary studies and others, were sought. Materials and Methods Electronic search within 6 orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews from 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The outcomes of interest pertained to the use, type and extent of quality appraisal/ risk of bias tools utilized as a standard process within the systematic reviews, and also whether a threshold had been stipulated by the systematic reviews authors. Predictor variables included journal, year of publication, geographic region, number of authors, involvement of a methodologist, type of systematic reviews, inclusion of meta-analysis, type/design of primary studies. Results A total of 262 systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion, with 41 quality appraisal/ risk of bias sets of tools being described either jointly or in isolation. One-third of the systematic reviews of the present sample (88/262; 33.6%) included a threshold, while this was mostly represented by the stipulation of sensitivity analyses in this respect (64/88; 72.8%). Journal of publication (non-Cochrane systematic reviews versus Cochrane systematic reviews: adjusted odds ratio, OR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01, 0.16; P < 0.001) and inclusion of a meta-analysis (adjusted OR: 8.76; 95%CI: 4.18, 18.37; P < 0.001), were identified as significant predictors for preplanning of thresholds. Conclusions and implications Quality assessment tools for primary studies are largely used and varied in orthodontic systematic reviews, while a threshold-level has been stipulated in only one third. Additional efforts should be endorsed by the scientific community, to embrace more straightforward adoption of the most rigorous reporting guidelines in this respect

Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021

AIM To assess the extent of publication bias assessment in systematic reviews (SRs) across the orthodontic literature over the last 12 years and to identify the appropriateness of assessment and association with publication characteristics, including year of publication, journal, searching practices within unpublished literature or attempts to contact primary study authors and others. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched six journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant articles, since January 2010, until November 2021. We recorded practices interrelated with publication bias assessment, at the SR and meta-analysis level. These pertained to reporting strategies for searching within unpublished literature, attempts to communicate with authors of primary studies and formal assessment of publication bias either graphically or statistically. Potential associations between publication bias assessment practices with variables such as journal, year, methodologist involvement, and others were sought at the meta-analysis level. RESULTS A sum of 289 SRs were ultimately included, with 139 of those incorporating at least one available mathematical synthesis. Efforts to search within unpublished literature were reported in 191 out of 289 Reviews (66.1%), while efforts to communicate with primary study authors were recorded for 150 of 289 of those (51.9%). An appropriate strategy plan to address issues of publication bias, conditional on the number of studies available and the methodology plan reported, was followed in 78 of the 139 meta-analyses (56.1%). Formal publication bias assessment was actually reported in 35 of 139 meta-analyses (25.2%), while only half of those (19/35; 54.3%) followed an appropriately established methodology. Ten of the latter 19 studies detected the presence of publication bias (52.6%). Predictor variables of appropriate publication bias assessment did not reveal any significant effects. CONCLUSIONS Appropriate methodology and rigorous practices for appraisal of publication bias are underreported in SRs within the orthodontic literature since 2010 and up-to-date, while other established methodologies including search strategies for unpublished data or communication with authors appear currently suboptimal

Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021

Aim To assess the extent of publication bias assessment in systematic reviews (SRs) across the orthodontic literature over the last 12 years and to identify the appropriateness of assessment and association with publication characteristics, including year of publication, journal, searching practices within unpublished literature or attempts to contact primary study authors and others. Materials and Methods We searched six journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant articles, since January 2010, until November 2021. We recorded practices interrelated with publication bias assessment, at the SR and meta-analysis level. These pertained to reporting strategies for searching within unpublished literature, attempts to communicate with authors of primary studies and formal assessment of publication bias either graphically or statistically. Potential associations between publication bias assessment practices with variables such as journal, year, methodologist involvement, and others were sought at the meta-analysis level. Results A sum of 289 SRs were ultimately included, with 139 of those incorporating at least one available mathematical synthesis. Efforts to search within unpublished literature were reported in 191 out of 289 Reviews (66.1%), while efforts to communicate with primary study authors were recorded for 150 of 289 of those (51.9%). An appropriate strategy plan to address issues of publication bias, conditional on the number of studies available and the methodology plan reported, was followed in 78 of the 139 meta-analyses (56.1%). Formal publication bias assessment was actually reported in 35 of 139 meta-analyses (25.2%), while only half of those (19/35; 54.3%) followed an appropriately established methodology. Ten of the latter 19 studies detected the presence of publication bias (52.6%). Predictor variables of appropriate publication bias assessment did not reveal any significant effects. Conclusions Appropriate methodology and rigorous practices for appraisal of publication bias are underreported in SRs within the orthodontic literature since 2010 and up-to-date, while other established methodologies including search strategies for unpublished data or communication with authors appear currently suboptimal