Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
THE REPORTING QUALITY OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ORTHODONTIC TRIALS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY
Q I Wang1, Feiyang Guo2, Yuchen Liu1
1State Key Laboratory of Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Objectives:
To assess the reporting quality of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading orthodontic journals during the past decade, and to identify factors associated with dPRO reporting.
Methods:
A manual search was conducted with the online archives of 5 selected journals, to identify orthodontic RCTs that used dPROs as primary outcomes, published between 2015 and 2024. The overall reporting quality (ORQ) and dPRO-specific reporting quality (PRQ) of the included RCTs were assessed using a modified 33-item CONSORT 2010 checklist and a modified 13-item CONSORT PRO checklist, respectively. The adequate reporting proportion (ARP) was calculated for each checklist item. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with ORQ and PRQ.
Results:
A total of 47 eligible RCTs were included. The mean (standard deviation) ORQ and PRQ scores were 20.1 (5.4) and 7.0 (2.3), respectively. Items including the "background," "eligibility criteria," "intervention," and "interpretation" (from the modified CONSORT 2010 checklist), as well as the "background and rationale of PROs" (from the modified CONSORT PRO checklist), were adequately described in all included RCTs. However, reporting was particularly inadequate for several CONSORT PRO items, including the "validity and reliability of PROMs" (ARP, 19.1%) and "sample size calculation" (31.9%). Regression analyses suggested that more recent publication year was significantly associated with higher scores in both ORQ (P = .004, 95% CI: 0.251, 1.264) and PRQ (P < .001, 95% CI: 0.219, 0.643), whereas mentioning of CONSORT showed a significant association with higher ORQ scores (P = .018, 95% CI: 0.766, 6.202).
Conclusions:
Among orthodontic RCTs that use dPROs as primary outcomes, the dPRO-specific reporting quality is suboptimal. Collaborative efforts from authors, editors, peer reviewers, and other stakeholders are essential to improve the completeness, transparency, and accuracy of outcome reporting, and thereby facilitate shared decision-making and evidence-based orthodontic practice, strengthen the validity and reliability of evidence synthesis, and ultimately maximize the scientific and clinical value of orthodontic trials.
