Improving the reporting of orthodontic clinical audits: an evaluation

Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting of orthodontic audits published between 2013-2019 following the introduction of a submission template in 2015.Methods An audit reporting checklist was developed, with each audit independently assessed by two assessors. Based on the previous quality checklist, an overall score of 4 or less represented poor reporting, 5-8 fair reporting and 9 or greater good reporting. All data variables were collected in a pre-piloted Excel data collection sheet.Results One hundred and fifty-nine audits were identified. A range of reporting scores were evident. The overall mean score was 10.1 (SD 1.5). Reporting scores showed improvement during the study timeframe, with a general increase in scores evident from 2015. Higher scores were achieved by multi-cycle audits (coefficient [coef]: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.62, p <0.001). Lower scores were achieved by partial audits (coef: -1.8, 95% CI: -2.23, -1.36, p <0.001), but scores increased every year (coef: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.27, p <0.001).Conclusions The reporting of orthodontic audits is rated as good, with yearly improvement in scores evident. The introduction of a submission template had a positive effect on the reporting of audits. Recommendations to further improve the quality of audits are outlined.