Lars Bondemark1, Sabine Ruf2. 1. *Department of Orthodontics, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden and. 2. *Department of Orthodontics, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden and sabine.ruf@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article is the result of a debate at the European Journal of Orthodontics Open Session in 2013 in Reykjavik, Iceland. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to highlight some of the strengths and weakness of clinical orthodontic research, with particular emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCT). The ultimate aim of improving clinical orthodontic research in general. DESIGN: This article is organized into two sections with arguments for and against RCTs. The backgrounds to evidence-based evaluation and the level or quality of evidence in trials are discussed. The article emphasises what makes high quality clinical research, and gives practical advice including examples of tips and potential pitfalls for those undertaking clinical research. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The overriding message is constructive and it is hoped that the article serves as an aid in evaluating, designing, conducting, and reporting clinical research.
BACKGROUND: This article is the result of a debate at the European Journal of Orthodontics Open Session in 2013 in Reykjavik, Iceland. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to highlight some of the strengths and weakness of clinical orthodontic research, with particular emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCT). The ultimate aim of improving clinical orthodontic research in general. DESIGN: This article is organized into two sections with arguments for and against RCTs. The backgrounds to evidence-based evaluation and the level or quality of evidence in trials are discussed. The article emphasises what makes high quality clinical research, and gives practical advice including examples of tips and potential pitfalls for those undertaking clinical research. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The overriding message is constructive and it is hoped that the article serves as an aid in evaluating, designing, conducting, and reporting clinical research.
Authors: Xianghong Hu; Jia Zhao; Zhixiang Lin; Yang Wang; Heng Peng; Hongyu Zhao; Xiang Wan; Can Yang Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Steven D Lauzon; Wenle Zhao; Paul J Nietert; Jody D Ciolino; Michael D Hill; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 2.494
Authors: Sebastian Orman; Amin Mohamadi; Joseph Serino; Jordan Murphy; Philip Hanna; Michael J Weaver; George Dyer; Ara Nazarian; Arvind von Keudell Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Samson Tse; Sau Man Catalina Ng; Wing Yan Winnie Yuen; Sadaaki Fukui; Richard J Goscha; Wann Ka Iris Lo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 2.692