UNLABELLED: The aims of this study were to assess the type, subject, setting and methods of papers published in British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) between 1989 and 1993 to allow all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be identified and a comparison of the papers published in the journals to be made. A hand search of all papers published in BJO and EJO between 1989 and 1993 was performed, and the type, subject, setting, and methods of each paper were classified and recorded. Of the studies, 59.3 per cent related to clinical orthodontics, but only three RCTs were identified in each journal. This comprised 2.8 per cent of the clinical research papers which were analysed. The remaining studies used non-randomized controls or were uncontrolled. Significant differences were found between the type (P < 0.001), subject (P < 0.001), setting (P < 0.01) and methods (P < 0.05) of papers published in the two journals. Relatively more papers in BJO were case reports, clinical opinions and update articles, reported on orthodontic materials or assessed methods of measuring the outcome of treatment. Ninety per cent of papers in EJO reported the results of research projects and relatively more papers, than in BJO, were related to animal studies, and were laboratory based or epidemiological. OBJECTIVES: To identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compare papers published in two orthodontic journals. DESIGN: A retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journals of Orthodontics) (EJO). DATA SOURCE: Papers published between 1989 and 1993. METHOD: A hand search of all papers was performed. The type, subject, setting and methods of each paper were classified and recorded. RESULTS: 200 papers were identified in BJO and 275 in EJO. Six RCTs were identified which represents 2.8 per cent of clinical research papers. Significant differences were found between the type (P < 0.001), subject (P < 0.001), setting (P < 0.01), and methods (P < 0.05) of papers published in the two journals. More papers in BJO were case reports, clinical opinions, and update articles, and reported on orthodontic materials or assessed methods of measuring the outcome of treatment. Ninety per cent of papers in EJU reported the results of research projects. More papers were related to animal studies; were laboratory based on epidemiological. CONCLUSION: Despite the RCT being regarded as the 'Gold Standard' for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions and materials only six (5.1 per cent) of such studies used this method. Significant differences in the type, setting and subject of papers published in BJO and EJO between 1989 and 1993 were found.
UNLABELLED: The aims of this study were to assess the type, subject, setting and methods of papers published in British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) between 1989 and 1993 to allow all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be identified and a comparison of the papers published in the journals to be made. A hand search of all papers published in BJO and EJO between 1989 and 1993 was performed, and the type, subject, setting, and methods of each paper were classified and recorded. Of the studies, 59.3 per cent related to clinical orthodontics, but only three RCTs were identified in each journal. This comprised 2.8 per cent of the clinical research papers which were analysed. The remaining studies used non-randomized controls or were uncontrolled. Significant differences were found between the type (P < 0.001), subject (P < 0.001), setting (P < 0.01) and methods (P < 0.05) of papers published in the two journals. Relatively more papers in BJO were case reports, clinical opinions and update articles, reported on orthodontic materials or assessed methods of measuring the outcome of treatment. Ninety per cent of papers in EJO reported the results of research projects and relatively more papers, than in BJO, were related to animal studies, and were laboratory based or epidemiological. OBJECTIVES: To identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compare papers published in two orthodontic journals. DESIGN: A retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journals of Orthodontics) (EJO). DATA SOURCE: Papers published between 1989 and 1993. METHOD: A hand search of all papers was performed. The type, subject, setting and methods of each paper were classified and recorded. RESULTS: 200 papers were identified in BJO and 275 in EJO. Six RCTs were identified which represents 2.8 per cent of clinical research papers. Significant differences were found between the type (P < 0.001), subject (P < 0.001), setting (P < 0.01), and methods (P < 0.05) of papers published in the two journals. More papers in BJO were case reports, clinical opinions, and update articles, and reported on orthodontic materials or assessed methods of measuring the outcome of treatment. Ninety per cent of papers in EJU reported the results of research projects. More papers were related to animal studies; were laboratory based on epidemiological. CONCLUSION: Despite the RCT being regarded as the 'Gold Standard' for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions and materials only six (5.1 per cent) of such studies used this method. Significant differences in the type, setting and subject of papers published in BJO and EJO between 1989 and 1993 were found.