Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alhussain, Almaha, Cobourne, Martyn T., Pandis, Nikolaos, Seehra, Jadbinder
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37867164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-023-00487-y
_version_ 1785124064913784832
author Alhussain, Almaha
Cobourne, Martyn T.
Pandis, Nikolaos
Seehra, Jadbinder
author_facet Alhussain, Almaha
Cobourne, Martyn T.
Pandis, Nikolaos
Seehra, Jadbinder
author_sort Alhussain, Almaha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. RESULTS: 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10590772
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105907722023-10-24 Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study Alhussain, Almaha Cobourne, Martyn T. Pandis, Nikolaos Seehra, Jadbinder Prog Orthod Research BACKGROUND: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. RESULTS: 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10590772/ /pubmed/37867164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-023-00487-y 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/) .
spellingShingle Research
Alhussain, Almaha
Cobourne, Martyn T.
Pandis, Nikolaos
Seehra, Jadbinder
Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title_full Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title_short Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study
title_sort clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? a meta-epidemiological study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37867164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-023-00487-y
work_keys_str_mv AT alhussainalmaha clinicalevaluationofmarketedandnonmarketedorthodonticproductsareresearchersnowaheadofthetimesametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT cobournemartynt clinicalevaluationofmarketedandnonmarketedorthodonticproductsareresearchersnowaheadofthetimesametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT pandisnikolaos clinicalevaluationofmarketedandnonmarketedorthodonticproductsareresearchersnowaheadofthetimesametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT seehrajadbinder clinicalevaluationofmarketedandnonmarketedorthodonticproductsareresearchersnowaheadofthetimesametaepidemiologicalstudy