Search

Background: Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions., Methods: Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 5 leading orthodontic journals were manually searched for eligible reviews between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Study selection and data extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Prevalence proportions were calculated for four outcomes on seeking and reporting of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between each one of these outcomes and the journal in which the systematic review was published using the eligible Cochrane reviews as reference., Results: Ninety-eight eligible systematic reviews were identified. 35.7% (35/98) of reviews defined seeking of adverse effects as a research objective, 85.7% (84/98) sought adverse effects, 84.7% (83/98) reported findings related to adverse effects, and 90.8% (89/98) considered or discussed potential adverse effects in the review. Reviews in the journal Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research compared with Cochrane reviews had approximately 7 times the odds (OR 7.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 47.96) to define seeking of adverse effects in the research objectives. Five of the 12 categories of adverse effects accounted for 83.1% (162/195) of all adverse effects sought and reported., Conclusions: Although the majority of included reviews sought and reported adverse effects of orthodontic interventions, end-users of these reviews should beware that these findings do not give the complete spectrum on these effects and that they could be jeopardized by the risk of non-systematically assessing and reporting of adverse effects in these reviews and in the primary studies that feed them. Much research is ahead such as developing core outcome sets on adverse effects of interventions for both primary studies and systematic reviews., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews., Methods: This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision., Results: 76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68)., Conclusion: End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences., Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau 2 and Chi 2 tests and I 2 to quantify inconsistency., Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys., Systematic Review Registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Synthesizing outcomes of underreported primary studies can pose a serious threat to the validity of outcomes and conclusions of systematic reviews. To address this problem, the Cochrane Collaboration recommends reviewers to contact authors of eligible primary studies to obtain additional information on poorly reported items. In this protocol, we present a cross-sectional study and a survey to assess (1) how reviewers of new Cochrane intervention reviews report on procedures and outcomes of contacting of authors of primary studies to obtain additional data, (2) how authors reply, and (3) the consequences of these additional data on the outcomes and quality scores in the review. All research questions and methods were pilot tested on 2 months of Cochrane reviews and were subsequently fine-tuned., Methods for the Cross-Sectional Study: Eligibility criteria are (1) all new (not-updates) Cochrane intervention reviews published in 2016, (2) reviews that included one or more primary studies, and (3) eligible interventions refer to contacting of authors of the eligible primary studies included in the review to obtain additional research data (e.g., information on unreported or missing data, individual patient data, research methods, and bias issues). Searching for eligible reviews and data extraction will be conducted by two authors independently. The cross-sectional study will primarily focus on how contacting of authors is conducted and reported, how contacted authors reply, and how reviewers report on obtained additional data and their consequences for the review., Methods for the Survey: The same eligible reviews for the cross-sectional study will also be eligible for the survey. Surveys will be sent to the contact addresses of these reviews according to a pre-defined protocol. We will use Google Forms as our survey platform. Surveyees are asked to answer eight questions. The survey will primarily focus on the consequences of contacting authors of eligible primary studies for the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores and the primary and secondary outcomes of the review., Discussion: The findings of this study could help improve methods of contacting authors and reporting of these procedures and their outcomes. Patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, research sponsors, and the general public will all be beneficiaries.

Background: Numerous surveys have shown that orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) are underused in clinical practice. To investigate this implementation issue, we conducted a systematic review to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs for all potential stakeholders and (2) quantify these implementation constructs, i.e., record their prevalence. We also recorded the prevalence of clinicians in the eligible studies that do not use OMIs., Methods: Methods were based on our published protocol. Broad-spectrum eligibility criteria were defined. A barrier was defined as any variable that impedes or obstructs the use of OMIs and a facilitator as any variable that eases and promotes their use. Over 30 databases including gray literature were searched until 15 January 2016. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool for studies reporting prevalence and incidence data was used to critically appraise the included studies. Outcomes were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were only conducted when pre-set criteria were fulfilled. Three reviewers conducted all research procedures independently. We also contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain additional information., Results: Three surveys fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Seventeen implementation constructs were identified in these studies and were extracted from a total of 165 patients and 1391 clinicians. Eight of the 17 constructs were scored by more than 50 % of the pertinent stakeholders. Three of these constructs overlapped between studies. Contacting of authors clarified various uncertainties but was not always successful. Limitations of the eligible studies included (1) the small number of studies; (2) not defining the research questions, i.e., the primary outcomes; (3) the research design (surveys) of the studies and the exclusive use of closed-ended questions; (4) not consulting standards for identifying implementation constructs; (5) the lack of pilot testing; (6) high heterogeneity; (7) the risk of reporting bias; and (8) additional shortcomings. Meta-analyses were not possible because of these limitations. Two eligible studies found that respectively 56.3 % (952/1691) and 40.16 % (439/1093) of clinicians do not use OMIs., Conclusions: Notwithstanding the limitations of the eligible studies, their findings were important because (1) 17 implementation constructs were identified of which 8 were scored by more than 50 % of the stakeholders; (2) the various shortcomings showed how to improve on future implementation studies; and (3) the underuse of OMIs in the selected studies and in the literature demonstrated the need to identify, quantify, and address implementation constructs. Prioritizing of future research questions on OMIs with all pertinent stakeholders is an important first step and could redirect research studies on OMIs towards implementation issues. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, insurance companies, implant companies, and research sponsors will all be beneficiaries.

Background: Most orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) are inserted between dental roots. The prevalence of contacting these structures is high. Such contacts can cause permanent root damage and implant instability. Increased torque levels during implant insertion (the index test) could be a more accurate and immediate measure for diagnosing implant-root contact (the target condition) than radiographs (the reference standard) and could ultimately lead to a reduction or elimination of X-ray exposure. To address this issue, we asked three questions: (1) whether OMIs with root contact had higher insertion torque values than those without, (2) what is the accuracy of the index test compared with the reference standard to diagnose the target condition and what are the adverse effects of the index test, and (3) whether intermediate torque values have clinical diagnostic utility., Methods: Methods were conducted according to our published protocol, which was based on the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. We applied broad spectrum eligibility criteria that included randomized and non-randomized studies on clinical, animal, and cadaver models. Not including such models would be unethical because it could slow down knowledge creation on the adverse effects of implant insertion. We conducted searches in more than 40 electronic databases including MEDLINE and 10 journals were hand-searched. Grey literature and reference lists were also searched. All research procedures were conducted independently by three reviewers. Authors of selected studies were contacted to obtain additional information. Outcomes on the three different research models were analysed separately. Systematic error was assessed with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias tool' for non-randomized studies., Results: One clinical, two animal, and two cadaver studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the first research question. All studies and subgroups demonstrated higher insertion torque values for OMIs with the target condition than those without. Mean differences (MD) between these effect estimates were statistically significant in one beagle model (MD, 4.64; 95 % CI, 3.50 to 5.79) and three subgroups of cadaver studies (MD, 2.70; 95 % CI, 1.42 to 3.98) (MD, 3.97; 95 % CI, 2.17 to 5.78) (MD, 0.93; 95 % CI, 0.67 to 1.20). Highest mean differences were identified in most self-drilling compared with pre-drilling groups. Clinical heterogeneity between studies was high, and many items were underreported. All studies except one cadaver study scored at least one domain as 'serious risk' of bias. No studies addressed the second research question. One cadaver study addressed the third question which showed the importance of recording torque levels during the entire implant insertion process. Responses of contacted authors were helpful, but often difficult to obtain. Implants fractured in one animal and in one cadaver model., Conclusions: All eligible studies scored higher insertion torque values for implants with root contact than those without, but none of these studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the index test. The inclusion of non-randomized and animal and cadaver models in this systematic review provided key findings that otherwise would have been wasted. Such studies are important in the context of the wide applicability of this test, the high prevalence of the target condition, and the underreporting of adverse effects of interventions. A protocol for a potential new diagnostic pathway was presented, and the importance of contacting authors was addressed. The applicability of the findings should be interpreted in the context of underreporting and the many limitations of the included studies.

Background: Most orthodontic treatment plans need some form of anchorage to control the reciprocal forces of tooth movement. Orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) have been hailed for having revolutionized orthodontics, because they provide anchorage without depending on the collaboration of patients, they have a favorable effectiveness compared with conventional anchorage devices, and they can be used for a wide scale of treatment objectives. However, surveys have shown that many orthodontists never or rarely use them. To understand the rationale behind this knowledge-to-action gap, we will conduct a systematic review that will identify and quantify potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs in clinical practice for all potential stakeholders, i.e., patients, family members, clinicians, office staff, clinic owners, policy makers, etc. The prevalence of clinicians that do not use OMIs will be our secondary outcome., Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement was adopted as the framework for reporting this manuscript. We will apply broad-spectrum search strategies and will search MEDLINE and more than 40 other databases. We will conduct searches in the gray literature, screen reference lists, and hand-search 12 journals. All study designs, stakeholders, interventions, settings, and languages will be eligible. We will search studies that report on barriers or facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) in clinical practice. Implementation constructs and their prevalence among pertinent stakeholders will be our primary outcomes. All searching and data extraction procedures will be conducted by three experienced reviewers. We will also contact authors and investigators to obtain additional information on data items and unidentified studies. Risk of bias will be scored with tools designed for the specific study designs. We will assess heterogeneity, meta-biases, and the robustness of the overall evidence of outcomes. We will present findings in a systematic narrative synthesis and plan meta-analyses when pertinent criteria are met., Discussion: Knowledge creation on this research topic could identify and quantify both expected and unexpected implementation constructs and their stakeholders. Such knowledge can help develop strategies to address implementation issues and redirect future studies on OMIs towards knowledge translation. This could lead to improved patient-health experiences and a reduction in research waste.

Background: Hitting a dental root during the insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) is a common adverse effect of this intervention. This condition can permanently damage these structures and can cause implant instability. Increased torque levels (index test) recorded during the insertion of OMIs may provide a more accurate and immediate diagnosis of implant-root contact (target condition) than radiographic imaging (reference standard). An accurate index test could reduce or eliminate X-ray exposure. These issues, the common use of OMIs, the high prevalence of the target condition, and because most OMIs are placed between roots warrant a systematic review. We will assess 1) the diagnostic accuracy and the adverse effects of the index test, 2) whether OMIs with root contact have higher insertion torque values than those without, and 3) whether intermediate torque values have clinical diagnostic utility., Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement was used as a the guideline for reporting this protocol. Inserting implants deliberately into dental roots of human participants would not be approved by ethical review boards and adverse effects of interventions are generally underreported. We will therefore apply broad spectrum eligibility criteria, which will include clinical, animal and cadaver models. Not including these models could slow down knowledge translation. Both randomized and non-randomized research studies will be included. Comparisons of interest and subgroups are pre-specified. We will conduct searches in MEDLINE and more than 40 other electronic databases. We will search the grey literature and reference lists and hand-search ten journals. All methodological procedures will be conducted by three reviewers. Study selection, data extraction and analyses, and protocols for contacting authors and resolving conflicts between reviewers are described. Designed specific risk of bias tools will be tailored to the research question. Different research models will be analysed separately. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity and conducting meta-analyses are pre-specified. The quality of evidence for outcomes will be assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Discussion: The findings of this systematic review will be useful for patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, policymakers, and surgical companies.