A road map for designing and reporting clinical trials in paediatric dentistry

Selective outcome reporting in paediatric dentistry restorative treatment randomised clinical trials-A meta-research

BACKGROUND

Selective outcome reporting (SOR) is a bias that occurs when the primary outcome of a randomised clinical trial (RCT) is omitted or changed.

AIM

To evaluate the prevalence of SOR in RCTs on restorative treatment in primary teeth.

DESIGN

We conducted an electronic search on ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization platform (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 1^st of April 2021, with no registry time or language restrictions. We included RCT protocols that evaluated restorative treatments in primary teeth and excluded trials that did not have a complete publication in a scientific journal. The chi-squared test was used to identify the association between SOR and variables as a discrepancy in the follow-up period, the timing of registration, the type of sponsorship and the type of study design (α = 5%).

RESULTS

Of the 294 identified protocols, 30 were included in the study. 83.3% of trials were registered retrospectively. SOR was observed in 53.3% (n = 16) of the published trials and was significantly associated with a discrepancy in the follow-up period (p = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of SOR in RCTs on restorative treatment proves that this is a prominent threat. A proper preregistered protocol, declaration of any protocol deviation and allowance of stakeholders to compare the protocol with that of the submitted papers will achieve transparency.

Research Question, Objectives, and Endpoints in Clinical and Oncological Research: A Comprehensive Review

Clinical research is a systematic process of conducting research work to find solutions for human health-related problems. It is applied to understand the disease process and assist in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Currently, we are experiencing global unrest caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been responsible for the deaths of more than 50 million people worldwide. Also, it has resulted in severe morbidity among the affected population. The cause of such a huge amount of influence on human health by the pandemic was the unavailability of drugs and therapeutic interventions to treat and manage the disease. Cancer is a disease condition wherein the normal cell function is deranged, and the cells multiply in an uncontrolled manner. Based on recent reports by the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. Moreover, the rates of cancers have shown an increasing trend in the past decade. Therefore, it is essential to improve the understanding concerning clinical research to address the health concerns of humans. In this review, we comprehensively discuss critical aspects of clinical research that include the research question, research objectives, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, and endpoints in clinical and oncological research.

Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research

Objectives: To assess the Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of published randomised clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. Materials and methods: All the published clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews until 1 June 2020 were identified and examined. RoB was assessed for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study using Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each variable in the study sample. Results: Out of a total of 2565 included studies, the majority (n = 1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. Regarding blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Among the various domains of bias, the performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB, compared to 11.1% with a low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had a higher percentage of low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). Additionally, the double- and triple-blind studies had higher percentages of low ORoB (23.6% and 23.3%, respectively), while the studies with a crossover design had the highest percentage of low ORoB (28.8%). Conclusion: The RoB of oral health studies published as Cochrane reviews was deemed high.