Abstract
BackgroundTo assess patterns of research collaboration in orthodontics and possible relationships with sample size and funding status.MethodsOrthodontic randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials published between 2013 and 2017 were identified through electronic searching. The nature of collaboration, author institutions, study setting, sample size, and funding status were assessed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were applied.ResultsOf 1153 studies, 217 met the selection criteria. The majority of studies were authored by university academics (86%), were conducted in a single centre (71.9%) and in at least one university hospital (68.2%). The number of practice-based trials (10.1%), as well as the involvement of specialist practitioners (5.2%) in co-authorship, was limited. Multi-centred studies within a single country were associated with a significantly larger sample size compared to single-centred trials (P = 0.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.59, 106.93). However, authorship collaboration either nationally (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% CI 0.85, 6.57) or internationally across different continents (OR 5.54; 95% CI 0.62, 49.52) did not translate into increased funding.ConclusionsMost orthodontic studies were undertaken in university hospital settings within a single country. Collaboration is common in orthodontics but involvement of practice settings remains limited, suggesting a need for stimulation of practice-based research and research partnerships.
Highlights
To assess patterns of research collaboration in orthodontics and possible relationships with sample size and funding status
The authors in the majority of the studies were based in a university or a university hospital (86%), while only 5.17% were based in practice (Table 2)
Multi-centred studies within a single country were associated with a significantly larger sample size compared to single-centred trials (P < 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.59, 106.93; Table 3)
Summary
To assess patterns of research collaboration in orthodontics and possible relationships with sample size and funding status. Collaborative research facilitates dissemination of knowledge and sharing of skills between researchers and, when performed optimally, may promote holistic and relevant research outputs. Previous literature has suggested that collaborative research may translate into higher research quality, citation counts and may attract more funding than non-collaborative research [2,3,4]. There is increasing recognition of the importance of bridging the translational gap between research and clinical practice in order to reduce research waste and improve patient care [8,9,10]. Randomised controlled trials of coronary bypass surgery have been shown to be relevant to less than 15% of patients [11].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
