Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1).

Background: Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Methods: Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible.

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2).

Background: It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews.

Methods: This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1.

Which orthodontic retention protocol should I implement? A critical assessment of a randomised controlled trial.

Trial design A single-centre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial.Objectives To assess differences in dental stability, patient perceptions and compliance and retainer failures in adolescents treated with vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) compared with those receiving bonded canine-to canine retainers after five years in retention.Methods In total, 104 eligible adolescents treated with fixed appliances in both jaws in a Swedish orthodontic clinic were randomised to two retention protocols.

Fixed orthodontic retainers and periodontal health.

Data sources The following electronic databases were searched from 1946 to 31 August 2019: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database.Study selection The following study designs were eligible: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies of prospective and retrospective design, and cross-sectional studies that reported periodontal measurements on patients who received fixed retention after orthodontic therapy.

Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.

Background: Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called "spin".

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study.

Background: Before implementing healthcare interventions, clinicians need to weigh the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions. However, a large body of evidence has demonstrated that seeking and reporting of adverse effects is suboptimal in clinical trials and in systematic reviews of interventions. This cross-sectional study will investigate the status of this problem in orthodontics.

Insertion torque and success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review.

Introduction: In this systematic review, we analyzed whether recommended maximum insertion torque values of 5 to 10 Ncm were associated with higher success rates of orthodontic mini-implants compared with mini-implants inserted with maximum insertion torque values beyond this range. Objective assessments of stability, variables that influence maximum insertion torque values, and adverse effect of interventions were also assessed in the studies selected for our PICO (patient problem or population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) question.

Methods: Computerized and manual searches of the literature were conducted up to February 24, 2012, for human studies that assessed these objectives.