Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The introduction of reporting checklists such as CONSORT aimed to enhance the clarity and transparency of the reporting of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs). A benefit of clear reporting is to allow healthcare clinicians to assess both the study quality and trial findings and determine its applicability in the treatment of their patients. Despite this global initiative, the reporting of Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) undertaken in both dentistry and orthodontics has been reported to sub-optimal in relation to several domains affecting the validity of the trial. Within the literature the adequacy of the statistical analysis undertaken in a trial has been questioned. The aim of this narrative review is to provide clinicians with an overview of the common statistical errors evident in published orthodontic Clinical Trials and to highlight the potential consequences on the interpretation of the trial findings.
Seehra et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: