Risk of bias in dentistry-related randomized controlled trials in spanish language journals

Objectives: To assess the risk of bias (RoB) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in dental journals in the Spanish language. Methods: A systematic retrospective survey was conducted of all RCTs published from 1980 to 2019 in dentistry Spanish and Latin American journals. We extracted data and performed RoB assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: 292 RCTs published in 51 journals were included. The best-rated domains were incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. The domains assessed with higher proportions of an unclear or high risk of bias were sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment. There is a low proportion of RCTs published in Spanish language journals. However, the number has been increasing over the years, and the low risk of bias assessment rates across domains show an increasing trend. Conclusions: A low percentage of Spanish-language dental journals issue RCTs. Our assessment of these RCTs' RoB suggests higher difficulties in the design and conduction phase than in the posterior reporting stage.

Evidence gaps in orthognathic surgery, a Delphi study protocol

Aim: To assess the research gaps identified in a recent mapping review of orthognathic surgery through their evaluation by clinical experts, leading to a clinically relevant list of research gaps. This will guide future investigations of the topic, focusing on the outcomes of blood loss, infection, and relapse. Methods: The Delphi technique will be used to appraise the identified research gaps. The expert panel will include maxillofacial surgeons who regularly perform orthognathic surgery. Potential participants will be identified through various methods, including contact information from articles in the mapping review, nominations from peers, and social media platforms. Two rounds of surveys will be undertaken with Likert-type and open-ended questions to assess the clinical relevance of research gaps. For the second round, participants will receive a report of the results of the first round. Questions will be modified depending on the answers obtained in the first round. A consensus of 60% will be considered valid. Conclusions: Through this Delphi study, in a collaborative effort between researchers and clinical experts, a comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of research gaps in orthognathic surgery will be achieved. The outcomes will guide future investigations, ultimately improving the outcomes and practices in this field.