Cargando…

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steegmans, Pauline A. J., Di Girolamo, Nicola, Bipat, Shandra, Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10318679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37400925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02273-7
_version_ 1785068088844091392
author Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
Di Girolamo, Nicola
Bipat, Shandra
Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
author_facet Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
Di Girolamo, Nicola
Bipat, Shandra
Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
author_sort Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. METHODS: Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 5 leading orthodontic journals were manually searched for eligible reviews between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Study selection and data extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Prevalence proportions were calculated for four outcomes on seeking and reporting of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between each one of these outcomes and the journal in which the systematic review was published using the eligible Cochrane reviews as reference. RESULTS: Ninety-eight eligible systematic reviews were identified. 35.7% (35/98) of reviews defined seeking of adverse effects as a research objective, 85.7% (84/98) sought adverse effects, 84.7% (83/98) reported findings related to adverse effects, and 90.8% (89/98) considered or discussed potential adverse effects in the review. Reviews in the journal Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research compared with Cochrane reviews had approximately 7 times the odds (OR 7.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 47.96) to define seeking of adverse effects in the research objectives. Five of the 12 categories of adverse effects accounted for 83.1% (162/195) of all adverse effects sought and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of included reviews sought and reported adverse effects of orthodontic interventions, end-users of these reviews should beware that these findings do not give the complete spectrum on these effects and that they could be jeopardized by the risk of non-systematically assessing and reporting of adverse effects in these reviews and in the primary studies that feed them. Much research is ahead such as developing core outcome sets on adverse effects of interventions for both primary studies and systematic reviews. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02273-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10318679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103186792023-07-05 Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1) Steegmans, Pauline A. J. Di Girolamo, Nicola Bipat, Shandra Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. METHODS: Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 5 leading orthodontic journals were manually searched for eligible reviews between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Study selection and data extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Prevalence proportions were calculated for four outcomes on seeking and reporting of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between each one of these outcomes and the journal in which the systematic review was published using the eligible Cochrane reviews as reference. RESULTS: Ninety-eight eligible systematic reviews were identified. 35.7% (35/98) of reviews defined seeking of adverse effects as a research objective, 85.7% (84/98) sought adverse effects, 84.7% (83/98) reported findings related to adverse effects, and 90.8% (89/98) considered or discussed potential adverse effects in the review. Reviews in the journal Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research compared with Cochrane reviews had approximately 7 times the odds (OR 7.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 47.96) to define seeking of adverse effects in the research objectives. Five of the 12 categories of adverse effects accounted for 83.1% (162/195) of all adverse effects sought and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of included reviews sought and reported adverse effects of orthodontic interventions, end-users of these reviews should beware that these findings do not give the complete spectrum on these effects and that they could be jeopardized by the risk of non-systematically assessing and reporting of adverse effects in these reviews and in the primary studies that feed them. Much research is ahead such as developing core outcome sets on adverse effects of interventions for both primary studies and systematic reviews. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02273-7. BioMed Central 2023-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10318679/ /pubmed/37400925 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02273-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
Di Girolamo, Nicola
Bipat, Shandra
Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title_full Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title_fullStr Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title_full_unstemmed Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title_short Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
title_sort seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10318679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37400925
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02273-7
work_keys_str_mv AT steegmanspaulineaj seekingadverseeffectsinsystematicreviewsoforthodonticinterventionsacrosssectionalstudypart1
AT digirolamonicola seekingadverseeffectsinsystematicreviewsoforthodonticinterventionsacrosssectionalstudypart1
AT bipatshandra seekingadverseeffectsinsystematicreviewsoforthodonticinterventionsacrosssectionalstudypart1
AT reyndersreintameursinge seekingadverseeffectsinsystematicreviewsoforthodonticinterventionsacrosssectionalstudypart1