Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals

Use of Evidence-Based Research Approach in RCTs of Acupuncture-Related Therapies for Primary Dysmenorrhea: A Meta-Research

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of evidence-based research (EBR) approach in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture-related therapies for primary dysmenorrhea (PD).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from January 2013 to December 2022 for RCTs of acupuncture on PD. The full text and references of each RCT were read to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) or other types of studies with similar research questions and end-users' perspectives were cited to justify and design the trial. In addition, the discussion section were analyzed to evaluate whether trials placed the new result in the existing SRs to draw a conclusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to find variables that associated with 3 aspects of EBR approach: (1) citing clinical studies for justification, (2) citing relevant studies that obtain the perspectives of end users, and (3) citing clinical studies for results discussion.

RESULTS

Of 473 RCTs included, 45.67% (216) of the trials cited relevant similar studies, 21.56% (102) referenced to the studies that collected end-users' perspectives, and 10.99% (52) placed result in the context of the previous research. Few RCTs appropriately applied EBR approach. Among all the included studies, 3.17% (15) of the trials used SRs to inform study questions but none of them used updated SRs with acceptable quality; 1.05% (5) of the trials cited SRs of end-user's perspectives in the justification and design of the study, and only 1 trial added results in existing SR to draw a conclusion. Year of publication, language, funding, registration, ethical approval and number of sites were significantly associated with 1 of the 3 aspects of EBR approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Few RCTs in acupuncture-related therapies for PD used the EBR approach to minimize research redundancy. Researchers, research institutes, funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and peer reviewers in acupuncture should make efforts to use and promote the EBR approach to ensure the value of new trials.

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science-A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

BACKGROUND

Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study.

METHODS

Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/).

RESULTS

Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%).

CONCLUSION

Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?

Background

A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored.

Material and methods

Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

Results

301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial.