Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2).

BACKGROUND: It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews. METHODS: This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision. RESULTS: 76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68). CONCLUSION: End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin.

Fixed orthodontic retainers and periodontal health.

Data sources The following electronic databases were searched from 1946 to 31 August 2019: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database.Study selection The following study designs were eligible: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies of prospective and retrospective design, and cross-sectional studies that reported periodontal measurements on patients who received fixed retention after orthodontic therapy. Studies irrespective of their language were selected by two reviewers independently.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction from the selected studies and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers independently. Specific risk of bias tools were used according to the pertinent research designs of the included studies. Criteria for conducting a meta-analysis were not met and a qualitative synthesis was conducted.Results Twenty-nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria; that is, 11 RCTs, four prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study and 13 cross-sectional studies. The quality of the evidence was low for most of the studies included in this review. Contrary to the general consensus, two RCTs, one prospective cohort study and two cross-sectional studies identified poorer periodontal health in patients with fixed orthodontic retainers.Conclusions The authors of this systematic review concluded that fixed orthodontic retainers in the majority of the 29 included studies seemed to be a method of retention that is rather compatible with periodontal health, or at least not related to severe detrimental consequences for the periodontium. No recommendations on the best type of fixed retainer to use could be given. High-quality evidence from long-term studies is necessary to provide definitive conclusions on the relationship between fixed retainers and periodontal health.

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Before implementing healthcare interventions, clinicians need to weigh the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions. However, a large body of evidence has demonstrated that seeking and reporting of adverse effects is suboptimal in clinical trials and in systematic reviews of interventions. This cross-sectional study will investigate the status of this problem in orthodontics. This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought and whether findings related to adverse effects were reported in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS: Systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published between 01 August 2009 and 31 July 2019 in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database will be included. Empty reviews will be excluded. The reporting of outcomes on adverse effects will not determine eligibility, i.e., reviews will not be excluded, because they did not report usable data. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. Our primary outcome will be the prevalence of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions that sought any findings related to adverse effects in the included studies. Additional prevalence statistics will be calculated on a series of items related to seeking of adverse effects in the eligible reviews. All statistics will be calculated for (1) all journals together, (2) the group of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately, and (3) each individual journal separately. Chi-square tests of independence will be used to compare these groups. DISCUSSION: This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This knowledge is important, because reviews that present an incomplete picture on adverse effects can have unfavorable consequences for the end-users. Also not reporting that no adverse effects were assessed in eligible studies included in a systematic review can mislead pertinent stakeholders. Our findings could have policy implications for making judgments on accepting or rejecting an intervention systematic review for publication, for example, by directing editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the various items on adverse effects defined in the MECIR standards and in the PRISMA harm checklist.

Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called "spin". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin. METHODS: Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of "spin" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups. DISCUSSION: We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Insertion torque and success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: In this systematic review, we analyzed whether recommended maximum insertion torque values of 5 to 10 Ncm were associated with higher success rates of orthodontic mini-implants compared with mini-implants inserted with maximum insertion torque values beyond this range. Objective assessments of stability, variables that influence maximum insertion torque values, and adverse effect of interventions were also assessed in the studies selected for our PICO (patient problem or population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) question. METHODS: Computerized and manual searches of the literature were conducted up to February 24, 2012, for human studies that assessed these objectives. Our eligibility criteria selected studies that (1) used sample sizes of 10 or more, (2) recorded maximum insertion torque during the insertion of orthodontic mini-implants, (3) inserted implants with a diameter smaller than 2.5 mm, and (4) applied orthodontic forces for a minimum duration of 4 months. Confounding was assessed through the analysis of risk of bias, and the validity of outcomes was rated according to the GRADE approach. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was our main guideline for the methodology. RESULTS: Seven nonrandomized studies met the eligibility criteria. All associations between specific maximum insertion torque values and success were based on literature rated as having low quality. The reasons for these judgments included subjective definitions of success, poor-quality torque sensors, and high risks for selection, performance, detection, and reporting biases. A risk of multiple publication bias was also suspected. All associations between maximum insertion torque and factors related to implant, patient, location, and surgery were rejected; few studies reported on adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no evidence indicates that specific maximum insertion torque levels are associated with higher success rates for orthodontic mini-implants. Additional research on this topic is therefore necessary. The following guidelines for future studies are suggested: (1) systematically review the animal and laboratory literature, (2) perform maximum insertion torque tests on artificial bone, (3) test associations in animal studies before conducting clinical trials, (4) test associations between maximum insertion torque and the stability of orthodontic mini-implants with objective quantitative recordings rather than subjective qualitative measures, (5) measure maximum insertion torque with digital sensors rather than with mechanical devices, (6) assess the stability of orthodontic mini-implants at preestablished times, (7) consult our risk-of-bias analysis, and (8) analyze the adverse effects of interventions.