ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Do we value the safety of our treatments? An empirical assessment of reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo record reporting of harms by authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in indexed orthodontic journals of the Q1 ranking, and explore associations between published reports and several publication characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsRCTs from six (6) Q1 indexed orthodontic journals, namely the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE), Progress in Orthodontics (PIOR), the Korean Journal of Orthodontics (KJO), and the Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists (JWFO) from January 2020 to December 2024 were included. Data extraction was conducted for outcome and predictor variables such as reporting of harms or otherwise, and other publication characteristics including year of publication, journal, origin of authorship, number of authors, design of the RCT, registration, funding, reporting of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsA total of 183 RCTs were included. Twenty four percent of RCTs (44/183) did not report on harms in their publications. A significant association was detected between reporting of harms and journal of publication, with EJO published studies acknowledging pertinent harms almost in their entirety (49/51; 96.1% reported harms; P = .008). RCTs of American affiliated authors were the least likely to report harms (P = .02). Studies reporting on PROMs showed 2.73 higher odds for reporting harms compared with those that did not include PROMs (adjusted odds ratio, OR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.04, 7.15; P = .04). There was strong evidence that RCTs with registered protocols presented higher odds for reporting harms than nonregistered trials (adjusted OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.62, 8.36; P = .002).
conclusionsAlbeit progress has been made, a quarter of orthodontic RCTs still do not include harms in their assessment. Registration, inclusion of PROMs, origin of authorship and journal of publication were significant predictors of harms reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.