Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study

Abstract Background Consistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ante Vardić, Livia Puljak, Tea Galić, Joško Viskić, Ena Kuliš, Tina Poklepović Peričić
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2023-11-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03658-9
_version_ 1811153705948413952
author Ante Vardić
Livia Puljak
Tea Galić
Joško Viskić
Ena Kuliš
Tina Poklepović Peričić
author_facet Ante Vardić
Livia Puljak
Tea Galić
Joško Viskić
Ena Kuliš
Tina Poklepović Peričić
author_sort Ante Vardić
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Consistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of medicine, is not yet available for trials in implant prosthodontic (dental implant) therapy. This meta-research study aimed to analyze outcomes used in clinical trials on implant prosthodontic therapy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) register to identify systematic reviews of interventions in implant prosthodontic therapy published by October 2023. From the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the relevant reviews, we extracted data on the characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes used. We categorized outcomes into domains. Results From 182 systematic reviews in the COHG register, we included 11 systematic reviews on dental implant therapy. The reviews included 117 unique RCTs with 4725 participants, published from 1995 to 2020, which analyzed 74 different outcomes. Using different definitions, implant failure was analyzed in 73 RCTs. Seventeen RCTs did not define implant failure. Failure was most often (30 RCTs) followed up for one year. Only one RCT assessed implant failure after five years. Trials used 17 definitions of implant failure, while 17 trials did not report on the criteria of implant failure. Complications were analyzed in 48 RCTs, although they were not clearly defined in 12 RCTs. Failure of prosthodontic supra-structure was analyzed in 74 RCTs, with definitions of failure and criteria not clearly defined in 44 RCTs. Trials considered adverse events, peri-implant tissue health, patient attitudes, and other outcomes, including cost, aesthetics, or procedure duration. These outcomes were often different between trials. Twenty-six outcomes were used only once per study. Conclusions Clinical trials in implant prosthodontics used different outcomes, different definitions of outcomes and used different times to monitor them. Standardization of outcomes is necessary to allow comparability and evidence synthesis about the effectiveness of implant prosthodontic therapy.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T14:51:46Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e99a44fbe2064c31840c9a7e1509d606
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1472-6831
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T14:51:46Z
publishDate 2023-11-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Oral Health
spelling doaj.art-e99a44fbe2064c31840c9a7e1509d6062023-11-26T14:25:32ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-11-0123111410.1186/s12903-023-03658-9Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research studyAnte Vardić0Livia Puljak1Tea Galić2Joško Viskić3Ena Kuliš4Tina Poklepović Peričić5Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of MedicineCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of CroatiaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of MedicineDepartment of Fixed Prosthodontics, University of Zagreb School of Dental MedicineStudy of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of MedicineDepartment of Prosthodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of MedicineAbstract Background Consistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of medicine, is not yet available for trials in implant prosthodontic (dental implant) therapy. This meta-research study aimed to analyze outcomes used in clinical trials on implant prosthodontic therapy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) register to identify systematic reviews of interventions in implant prosthodontic therapy published by October 2023. From the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the relevant reviews, we extracted data on the characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes used. We categorized outcomes into domains. Results From 182 systematic reviews in the COHG register, we included 11 systematic reviews on dental implant therapy. The reviews included 117 unique RCTs with 4725 participants, published from 1995 to 2020, which analyzed 74 different outcomes. Using different definitions, implant failure was analyzed in 73 RCTs. Seventeen RCTs did not define implant failure. Failure was most often (30 RCTs) followed up for one year. Only one RCT assessed implant failure after five years. Trials used 17 definitions of implant failure, while 17 trials did not report on the criteria of implant failure. Complications were analyzed in 48 RCTs, although they were not clearly defined in 12 RCTs. Failure of prosthodontic supra-structure was analyzed in 74 RCTs, with definitions of failure and criteria not clearly defined in 44 RCTs. Trials considered adverse events, peri-implant tissue health, patient attitudes, and other outcomes, including cost, aesthetics, or procedure duration. These outcomes were often different between trials. Twenty-six outcomes were used only once per study. Conclusions Clinical trials in implant prosthodontics used different outcomes, different definitions of outcomes and used different times to monitor them. Standardization of outcomes is necessary to allow comparability and evidence synthesis about the effectiveness of implant prosthodontic therapy.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03658-9Core outcomesImplant prosthodonticsRandomized controlled trialsMeta-research
spellingShingle Ante Vardić
Livia Puljak
Tea Galić
Joško Viskić
Ena Kuliš
Tina Poklepović Peričić
Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
BMC Oral Health
Core outcomes
Implant prosthodontics
Randomized controlled trials
Meta-research
title Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
title_full Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
title_fullStr Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
title_full_unstemmed Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
title_short Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study
title_sort heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research meta research study
topic Core outcomes
Implant prosthodontics
Randomized controlled trials
Meta-research
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03658-9
work_keys_str_mv AT antevardic heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy
AT liviapuljak heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy
AT teagalic heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy
AT joskoviskic heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy
AT enakulis heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy
AT tinapoklepovicpericic heterogeneityofoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsonimplantprosthodontictherapyishinderingcomparativeeffectivenessresearchmetaresearchstudy