MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417427302 · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjaf105

Do we value the safety of our treatments? An empirical assessment of reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics

2025· article· en· W4417427302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ioanna Georganakis, Vasiliki Koretsi, Theodore Eliades, Despina Koletsi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Orthodontics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialValue (mathematics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Inclusion (mineral)Alternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To 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 METHODS: RCTs 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. RESULTS: A 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). CONCLUSIONS: Albeit 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207