Are Industry Payments Associated With the Level of Evidence in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the industry payments in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) are associated with a study's level of evidence (LOE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed and implemented to query the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from 2002 to 2016. The primary predictor variables were the presence of a self-reported conflict of interest (COI) and the type of COI. The outcome variable was the LOE. The secondary outcome variables investigated were the topic of the study and the inclusion of trainees. The inclusion criteria entailed contributions from domestic academic OMS training programs. Disclosure of the COIs and type of COI, the LOE, topic of the study, and inclusion of trainees were recorded for every report from January 2002 until December 2016. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and χ2 tests were performed to determine a significant relationship primarily between the COIs and LOE. RESULTS: The sample included 1455 reports, and 4.2% of the sample size had disclosed a COI. The studies that disclosed industry payments demonstrated a significant positive correlation with the LOE (P < .01), especially for cohort studies. Also, the type of COI was significantly associated with the LOE (P < .05). Industry payments were not shown to be significantly related statistically to topic of the study (P = .16); however, the stock-related payments were associated with the topic (P < .05). No association was found between COI disclosure and trainee contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The results have indicated that industry payments are associated with the LOE in the OMS literature. Further studies are needed to elucidate both the accuracy of the financial disclosures by comparing them with publicly available open payment databases and the perceptions of the OMSs, their trainees, and their patients regarding the influence of industry payments on the specialty's academic interests.

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Dental Students Seek Academically Productive Mentors.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a strong statistical correlation exists between the involvement of trainee groups and the academic productivity of the senior author. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of publications in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from 2002 to 2016 was designed and implemented. The primary predictor variables were the presence of a trainee (dental student or oral and maxillofacial surgery [OMS] resident), year of publication, and study design and topic. The outcome variable was the Hirsch index (h-index) of the senior author. Author affiliations were queried using ScienceDirect, and the Scopus database was used to identify the h-index of the senior author from each publication spanning the previous 15 years. Descriptive statistics and t tests were performed to determine significance. RESULTS: Of the 6,398 articles published in the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from January 2002 to December 2016, 1,341 (21.0%) met the inclusion criteria. The mean h-index of senior authors of articles with trainees or OMS residents was not significantly different from the mean h-index of senior authors without trainees (P = .50) or OMS residents (P = .37), whereas the mean h-index of senior authors working with dental students was significantly greater than the h-index of those not working with dental students (P < .01). Dental student mentors had a mean h-index that was below the sample mean from 2002 to 2007 but rose above the sample mean from 2010 to 2016. Trainees were more likely to work with academically productive mentors in orthognathic surgery (P < .01), temporomandibular joint (P < .05), retrospective cohort (P < .05), and innovative technique (P < .05) studies but less likely in randomized controlled trials (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Dental students seek more academically productive mentors to a greater degree. More studies should be conducted to elucidate the attributes of the ideal mentor in academic OMS and to determine whether differences in mentorship exist between domestic and foreign OMS programs.

Does Early Repair of Orbital Fractures Result in Superior Patient Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To date, no clear evidence-based guidelines exist pertaining to the ideal timing to perform surgical treatment of orbital fractures. The purpose of this study was to determine if early treatment of orbital fractures resulted in better patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between different time intervals between orbital injury and surgical intervention. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registry were queried. The quality of evidence was based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The predictor variable was the timing of operative repair (early vs late). The outcome variable was complete recovery. Other variables of interest were diplopia, enophthalmos, and preoperative motility restriction. Meta-analyses were performed when definitions of active and control interventions and patient outcomes were deemed similar. In addition, χ2 tests were performed to determine differences in clinical outcomes between early and late operative repair. RESULTS: Of the 1,160 articles reviewed, 20 met the inclusion criteria. Surgery performed less than 2 weeks after injury was significantly associated with greater odds of complete recovery of symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 6.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.35-35.06]), as well as a lower incidence of postoperative diplopia (OR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]) and enophthalmos (OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]). Repair performed less than 30 days after injury was associated complete resolution of preoperative motility restriction (OR, 24.6 [95% CI, 1.30-462.34]) as well as diplopia. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the timing of surgery and definition of patient outcomes, as well as variations in methods of evaluating postoperative outcomes, potentiate the risk of bias and warrant downgrading of the quality of evidence in a study. The timing of repair varied among 2, 4, and 8 weeks after injury. However, a short time to surgical intervention was significantly associated with resolution of vertical dystopia, postoperative enophthalmos, and motility restriction.