An exploratory review on the empirical evaluation of the quality of reporting and analyzing labor duration.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory review aimed to provide empirical evidence on the definitions of labor, the statistical approaches and measures reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies measuring the duration of labor. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search was conducted using different databases. An extraction form was designed and used to extract relevant data. English, French, and German studies published between 1999 and 2019 have been included. Only RCTs and observational studies analyzing labor duration (or a phase of labor duration) as a primary outcome have been included. RESULTS: Ninety-two RCTs and 126 observational studies were eligible. No definition of the onset of labor was provided in 21.7% (n = 20) of the RCTs and 23.8% (n = 30) of the observational studies. Mean was the most frequently applied measure of labor duration in the RCTs (89.1%, n = 82), and median in the observational studies (54.8%, n = 69). Most RCTs (83%, n = 76) and observational studies (70.6%, n = 89) analyzed labor duration using a bivariate method, with the t-test being the most frequently applied (45.7% and 27%, respectively). Only 10.8% (n = 10) of the RCTs and 52.4% (n = 66) of the observational studies conducted a multivariable regression: 3 (30%; out of 10) RCTs and 37 (56%; out of 66) observational studies used a time-to-event adapted model. CONCLUSION: This survey reports a lack of agreement with respect to how the onset of labor and phases of labor duration are presented. Concerning the statistical approaches, few studies used survival analysis, which is the appropriate statistical framework to analyze time-to-event data.

Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs) include studies published mostly in English than non-English languages. Including only English studies in SRs may result in a language bias. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to evaluate the language bias impact on orthodontic SRs. DATA SOURCE: SRs published in high-impact orthodontic journals between 2017 and 2021 were retrieved through an electronic search of PubMed in June 2022. Additionally, Cochrane oral health group was searched for orthodontic systematic reviews published in the same period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection and data extraction were performed by two authors. Multivariable logistic regression was implemented to explore the association of including non-English studies with the SRs characteristics. For the meta-epidemiological analysis, one meta-analysis from each SRs with at least three trials, including one non-English trial was extracted. The average difference in SMD was obtained using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: 174 SRs were included in this study. Almost one-quarter (n = 45/174, 26%) of these SRs included at least one non-English study. The association between SRs characteristics and including non-English studies was not statistically significant except for the restriction on language: the odds of including non-English studies reduced by 89% in SRs with a language restriction (OR: 0.11, 95%CI: 0.01 0.55, P< 0.01). Out of the sample, only fourteen meta-analyses were included in the meta-epidemiological analysis. The meta-epidemiological analysis revealed that non-English studies tended to overestimate the summary SMD by approximately 0.30, but this was not statistically significant when random-effects model was employed due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (ΔSMD = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.63 to 0.05, P = 0.37). As such, the overestimation of meta-analysis results by including non-English studies was statistically non-significant. CONCLUSION: Language bias has non-negligible impact on the results of orthodontic SRs. Orthodontic systematic reviews should abstain from language restrictions and use sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of language on the conclusions, as non-English studies may have a lower quality.

Low awareness of the transitivity assumption in complex networks of interventions: a systematic survey from 721 network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The transitivity assumption is the cornerstone of network meta-analysis (NMA). Violating transitivity compromises the credibility of the indirect estimates and, by extent, the estimated treatment effects of the comparisons in the network. The present study offers comprehensive empirical evidence on the completeness of reporting and evaluating transitivity in systematic reviews with multiple interventions. METHODS: We screened the datasets of two previous empirical studies, resulting in 361 systematic reviews with NMA published between January 2011 and April 2015. We updated our evidence base with an additional 360 systematic reviews with NMA published between 2016 and 2021, employing a pragmatic approach. We devised assessment criteria for reporting and evaluating transitivity using relevant methodological literature and compared their reporting frequency before and after the PRISMA-NMA statement. RESULTS: Systematic reviews published after PRISMA-NMA were more likely to provide a protocol (odds ratio (OR): 3.94, 95% CI: 2.79-5.64), pre-plan the transitivity evaluation (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.54-6.23), and report the evaluation and results (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.55-2.86) than those before PRISMA-NMA. However, systematic reviews after PRISMA-NMA were less likely to define transitivity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.79) and discuss the implications of transitivity (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.85) than those published before PRISMA-NMA. Most systematic reviews evaluated transitivity statistically than conceptually (40% versus 12% before PRISMA-NMA, and 54% versus 11% after PRISMA-NMA), with consistency evaluation being the most preferred (34% before versus 47% after PRISMA-NMA). One in five reviews inferred the plausibility of the transitivity (22% before versus 18% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by 11% of reviews that found it difficult to judge transitivity due to insufficient data. In justifying their conclusions, reviews considered mostly the comparability of the trials (24% before versus 30% after PRISMA-NMA), followed by the consistency evaluation (23% before versus 16% after PRISMA-NMA). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there has been a slight improvement in reporting and evaluating transitivity since releasing PRISMA-NMA, particularly in items related to the systematic review report. Nevertheless, there has been limited attention to pre-planning the transitivity evaluation and low awareness of the conceptual evaluation methods that align with the nature of the assumption.

A 22-year follow-up cross-sectional study on periapical health in relation to the quality of root canal treatment in a Belgian population.

AIM: To investigate the prevalence of apical periodontitis (AP) and the technical standard of root canal treatment in a Belgian population, assess the association of different variables with periapical status, and compare the results to a similar study conducted 22 years previously. METHODOLOGY: In this cross-sectional study, 614 panoramic radiographs of first-time adult attendees at the Dental School of the University Hospital of Ghent were examined. Recorded patient-level parameters included gender, age, number of teeth, number of root filled teeth, presence of any AP lesion, and number of implants. The following tooth-level data were collected: tooth presence, coronal status, quality of coronal restoration, post presence, type of root-filling material, length and density of root filling, root-end filling material, presence of AP, and adjacent implant. Multivariable multilevel binary logistic regression was used to explore the association between patient and tooth characteristics and AP prevalence. Risk differences and confidence intervals were calculated to compare the present with the previous study. RESULTS: The prevalence of AP at patient and tooth level was 46.9% and 5.6%, respectively. Fifty-one per cent of the 614 patients had at least one root filled tooth, and 5.9% of the 14 655 teeth studied were root filled. AP was found in 45% of root filled teeth. Fifty-four per cent of the root-filled teeth were rated as inadequate. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression revealed that more teeth, more implants, fewer root-filled teeth, adequate density, adequate coronal restoration, and no caries reduced the likelihood of AP. There were no statistically significant differences between the two studies regarding the prevalence of root-filled teeth or AP and the technical quality of root canal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AP and the technical quality of root canal treatment in Belgium have not substantially changed over the last 22 years, despite the technological advancements and continuing education in the field.