Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding
Abstract 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....
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2018-06-01
|
| Series: | Progress in Orthodontics |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40510-018-0215-3 |
| _version_ | 1811290013712777216 |
|---|---|
| author | D. Al-Moghrabi A. Tsichlaki N. Pandis P. S. Fleming |
| author_facet | D. Al-Moghrabi A. Tsichlaki N. Pandis P. S. Fleming |
| author_sort | D. Al-Moghrabi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T04:05:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-476469e1750e4d1c80a777629ff17254 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2196-1042 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T04:05:24Z |
| publishDate | 2018-06-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Progress in Orthodontics |
| spelling | doaj.art-476469e1750e4d1c80a777629ff172542022-12-22T03:03:18ZengSpringerOpenProgress in Orthodontics2196-10422018-06-011911710.1186/s40510-018-0215-3Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and fundingD. Al-Moghrabi0A. Tsichlaki1N. Pandis2P. S. Fleming3Centre for Oral Growth and Development, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of LondonCentre for Oral Growth and Development, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of LondonDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Medical Faculty, University of BernCentre for Oral Growth and Development, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of LondonAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40510-018-0215-3 |
| spellingShingle | D. Al-Moghrabi A. Tsichlaki N. Pandis P. S. Fleming Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding Progress in Orthodontics |
| title | Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| title_full | Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| title_fullStr | Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| title_full_unstemmed | Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| title_short | Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| title_sort | collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials prevalence and association with sample size and funding |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40510-018-0215-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dalmoghrabi collaborationinorthodonticclinicaltrialsprevalenceandassociationwithsamplesizeandfunding AT atsichlaki collaborationinorthodonticclinicaltrialsprevalenceandassociationwithsamplesizeandfunding AT npandis collaborationinorthodonticclinicaltrialsprevalenceandassociationwithsamplesizeandfunding AT psfleming collaborationinorthodonticclinicaltrialsprevalenceandassociationwithsamplesizeandfunding |