Al-MoghrabiDTsichlakiAPandisNet al. (2018) Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding. Progress in Orthodontics19: 16.
2.
CappelleriJCIoannidisJPSchmidCHet al. (1996). Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?Journal of the American Medical Association276: 1332–1338.
3.
IoannidisJP (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Quarterly94: 485–514.
4.
BearnDRAlharbiF (2015) Reporting of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature from 2008 to 2012: observational study of published reports in four major journals. Journal of Orthodontics42: 186–191.
5.
ChalmersIBrackenMBDjulbegovicBet al. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet383: 156–165.
6.
ClarkeMHopewellSChalmersI (2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet376: 20–21.
7.
GarnerPHopewellSChandlerJet al. (2016) Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. British Medical Journal354: i3507.
8.
GlasziouPDjulbegovicBBurlsA (2006). Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials?Lancet367: 2057–2058.
9.
GreeneLEBearnDR (2013) Setting up a randomized clinical trial in the UK: approvals and process. Journal of Orthodontics40: 104–111.
10.
GuyattGHOxmanADVistGEet al. (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal336: 924–926.
11.
HigginsJPTGreenS (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.
IoannidisJP (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association294: 218–228.
13.
KoletsiDSpineliLMLempesiEet al. (2016) Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review. European Journal of Orthodontics38: 308–312.
14.
PapageorgiouSNCobourneMT (2018) Data sharing in orthodontic research. Journal of Orthodontics45: 1–3.
15.
PapageorgiouSNXavierGMCobourneMTet al. (2018) Registered trials report less beneficial treatment effects than unregistered ones: a meta-epidemiological study in orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology100: 44–52.
16.
PapageorgiouSNXavierGMCobourneMT. (2015) Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology68: 1512–1522.
17.
PapageorgiouSN (2014) Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II–Is all that glitters gold?Journal of Orthodontics41: 327–336.
18.
PatsopoulosNAAnalatosAAIoannidisJP (2005) Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association293: 2362–2366.
19.
SeehraJPandisNFlemingPS (2017) Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study. Progress in Orthodontics18: 14.
20.
SideriSPapageorgiouSNEliadesT (2017) Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?Journal of Orthodontics44: 249–255.
