Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding

• Main Authors: Al-Moghrabi, D. (Author), Fleming, P.S (Author), Pandis, N. (Author), Tsichlaki, A. (Author)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
• Subjects: Article; controlled clinical trial (topic); Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; cooperation; Cooperative Behavior; dental research; Dental Research; financial management; funding; human; Humans; meta analysis (topic); methodology; orthodontics; Orthodontics; prevalence; priority journal; randomized controlled trial (topic); Research Design; Research Support as Topic; sample size; Sample Size
• Online Access: View Fulltext in Publisher

 Background: To assess patterns of research collaboration in orthodontics and possible relationships with sample size and funding status. Methods: Orthodontic randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials published between 2013 and 2017 were identified through electronic searching. The nature of collaboration, author institutions, study setting, sample size, and funding status were assessed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were applied. Results: Of 1153 studies, 217 met the selection criteria. The majority of studies were authored by university academics (86%), were conducted in a single centre (71.9%) and in at least one university hospital (68.2%). The number of practice-based trials (10.1%), as well as the involvement of specialist practitioners (5.2%) in co-authorship, was limited. Multi-centred studies within a single country were associated with a significantly larger sample size compared to single-centred trials (P = 0.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.59, 106.93). However, authorship collaboration either nationally (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% CI 0.85, 6.57) or internationally across different continents (OR 5.54; 95% CI 0.62, 49.52) did not translate into increased funding. Conclusions: Most orthodontic studies were undertaken in university hospital settings within a single country. Collaboration is common in orthodontics but involvement of practice settings remains limited, suggesting a need for stimulation of practice-based research and research partnerships. © 2018, The Author(s).