From case reports to conflicts of interest

Abstract

As Tom Graber eases into “emeritus” status, it is tempting to think that journalistic innovation displayed in the AJO/DO will be diminished. But as changing technology becomes a way of life, don’t assume for a minute that your Journal will become a static member of the information community. In last month’s editorial I touted the advantages of having the online version of the AJO/DO available at no additional cost to all subscribers. Two more changes will soon become obvious, both to readers and to those involved in producing material for publication. These changes are: new requirements for the publication of case reports, and the addition of a conflict of interest statement for authors, reviewers, and staff. For years clinicians have been placing greater emphasis on the publication of unique case reports. To assist in the selection of clinical material that epitomizes excellence, I asked Dr Vincent Kokich to develop a method of evaluating all case reports submitted for publication. He responded with a weighted evaluation form that has been tested and is now being fully implemented. This form allows us to place increased emphasis on the quality and completeness of records submitted as well as the quality of treatment. As Dr Kokich said, “We can always help the author improve the write-up of a case report, provided the original records are excellent and the case is well-treated.” Other components of an acceptable case report include:•Brief introduction of the problem (emphasizing the unique nature of the case being treated)•Diagnostic findings, including a problem list•Selected treatment objectives•Proposed treatment plan with all realistic alternatives•Progress of selected treatment•Critical discussion of how the selected treatment plan achieved (or failed to achieve) the original treatment objectives•Retention and prognosis for long-term stability A sample of this case report evaluation form can be found on page 2. One of the first cases submitted for this type of examination was that of Dr Vince Kokich, Jr. His student CDABO case appears on page 107. You might expect to hear a university professor speak of the need for high standards of ethics when dealing with conflicts of interest and disclosure in scientific journals, but it is unusual to read of major ethical violations in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. “When an academic writes a piece of scholarship, the expectation is that it is pure,” according to an article in the Wall Street Journal (January 31, 2000.) The New England Journal of Medicine has apparently violated its own ethics policy many times in the past 3 years. The Los Angles Times recently identified 8 articles by researchers with undisclosed financial links to drug companies that marketed treatments evaluated in the articles. The Times authorized an analysis of 36 drug therapy review articles after reporting in September that the journal ran a review of hair-loss treatments by a researcher with undisclosed financial ties to the companies that market 2 popular drugs. This increased scrutiny by the public has a direct bearing on my decision to implement a policy of disclosure regarding articles in the AJO/DO. This new policy is not expected to prevent interested parties from participating in the operation of the AJO/DO, but it is designed to make public the existence of a real or perceived conflict of interest. This policy follows closely on the heels of another change initiated more than a year ago requiring scientific speakers at all AAO meetings to acknowledge conflicts of interest verbally during the introduction. This practice has not seemed to dampen participation in our meetings, but has served to keep everyone better informed regarding the possibility of damaging conflicts. The actual conflict of interest statement being implemented can be found on page 3. With the publication of this policy statement, all participants in the process of publishing research findings in the AJO/DO will be asked to read and sign it. The net effect will be greater assurance to you, the reader, that the articles in this Journal are credible and free of unknown influences. In simple terms…there will be no secrets when publishing the efforts of any author, reviewer, editor, or staff member. Treatment of a Class I malocclusion with a carious mandibular incisor and no Bolton discrepancyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 118Issue 1PreviewOccasionally orthodontists must plan treatment for a patient with extensive caries or a traumatic injury to one mandibular incisor. If the patient has a Bolton discrepancy, one treatment option could involve extraction of the affected mandibular incisor. However, if the patient does not have a Bolton discrepancy and a mandibular incisor is extracted, the treatment becomes more complicated. This case report will present and discuss the ramifications of extracting one mandibular incisor in a patient without an anterior tooth-size discrepancy. Full-Text PDF