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

Abstract

Why are there so many systematic reviews in orthodontics, and what are the negative consequences of this for our speciality as an academic discipline?

Keywords

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

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Moghrabi

Tsichlaki

Pandis

et al . (2018) Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding. Progress in Orthodontics 19: 16.

Cappelleri

Ioannidis

Schmid

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.

Ioannidis

(2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Quarterly 94: 485–514.

Bearn

Alharbi

(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.

Chalmers

Bracken

Djulbegovic

et al . (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 156–165.

Clarke

Hopewell

Chalmers

(2010) Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376: 20–21.

Garner

Hopewell

Chandler

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.

Glasziou

Djulbegovic

Burls

(2006). Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet 367: 2057–2058.

Greene

Bearn

(2013) Setting up a randomized clinical trial in the UK: approvals and process. Journal of Orthodontics 40: 104–111.

10.

Guyatt

Oxman

Vist

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

(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

(2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294: 218–228.

13.

Koletsi

Spineli

Lempesi

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

Cobourne

(2018) Data sharing in orthodontic research. Journal of Orthodontics 45: 1–3.

15.

Papageorgiou

Xavier

Cobourne

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

Xavier

Cobourne

. (2015) Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68: 1512–1522.

17.

Papageorgiou

(2014) Meta-analysis for orthodontists: Part II–Is all that glitters gold? Journal of Orthodontics 41: 327–336.

18.

Patsopoulos

Analatos

Ioannidis

(2005) Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 2362–2366.

19.

Seehra

Pandis

Fleming

(2017) Clinical evaluation of marketed orthodontic products: are researchers behind the times? A meta-epidemiological study. Progress in Orthodontics 18: 14.

20.

Sideri

Papageorgiou

Eliades

(2017) Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? Journal of Orthodontics 44: 249–255.