Do Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Comply With Best Practices for Reporting the Results of Randomized Clinical Trials?

Abstract

To address the shortcoming of reporting P values, several leading medical journals have revised their guidelines for reporting results, specifically mandating the use of confidence intervals (CIs). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the frequency of reporting CIs in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons. We implemented a retrospective cohort study and enrolled a sample composed of RCTs reported in 3 oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) journals in 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. We identified RCTs using a Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search in Medline. Studies were included in the sample if they were randomized and reported a measure of association. Predictor variables included the year of publication, journal, OMS focus area (eg, dentoalveolar surgery, anesthesia/facial pain, craniomaxillofacial trauma), reported confounding factors, funding sources, conflict of interest, study region, number of institutions involved, number of authors, and academic rank of the authors. The primary outcome of interest was reporting of the CI. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed. A P value of≤.05 was considered significant. The sample included 102 reports. The P value was uniformly reported (100%) in all 102 publications. CIs were reported in 29 reports (28.4%; 95% CI, 19.9 to 38.2). The OMS focus area was associated with reporting CIs (P=.02). Anesthesia/facial pain studies were significantly less likely to report the CIs (12.0%) compared with studies of craniomaxillofacial deformities (100%; Bonferroni P=.02). No other significant associations were found between the predictors and CI reporting (P≥.08). CIs have been reported in a small proportion of RCTs within OMS. Given the shortcomings of reporting only the P values, a significant need exists for improving the statistical reporting standards among OMS journals.