Hawthorne effect reporting in orthodontic randomized controlled trials : truth or myth? Blessing or curse?

DSpace Repository

Hawthorne effect reporting in orthodontic randomized controlled trials : truth or myth? Blessing or curse?

Overview

Detailed record

dc.contributor.author Abdulraheem, Salem
dc.contributor.author Bondemark, Lars
dc.date.accessioned 2017-12-07T16:03:57Z
dc.date.available 2017-12-07T16:03:57Z
dc.date.issued 2017 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0141-5387 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1460-2210
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2043/23930
dc.description.abstract Objective To investigate in 10 orthodontic journals how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considered the Hawthorne effect, and if considered, to determine whether it was related to the patients or the therapists involved in the trial and, finally, to discuss the Hawthorne effect in an educational way. Materials and methods A search was performed on the Medline database, via PubMed, for publication type ‘randomized controlled trial’ published for each journal between 1 August 2007 and 31 July 2017. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, Korean Journal of Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research and Progress in Orthodontics were assessed. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and identified whether the Hawthorne effect was considered or discussed in the articles and whether the Hawthorne effect was related to the behaviour of the patients, the therapists, or both. Results The initial search generated 502 possible trials. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 290 RCTs were included and assessed. The Hawthorne effect was considered or discussed in 10 of 290 RCTs (3.4%), and all were related to the patients’ and none to the therapists’ behaviour. Conclusions The Hawthorne effect reported in orthodontic RCTs was suboptimal. The researchers’ lack of knowledge about this phenomenon is evident, despite evidence that the Hawthorne effect may cause over-optimistic results or false-positive bias. en_US
dc.format.extent 5
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Oxford University Press en_US
dc.subject orthodontics en_US
dc.subject hawthorne effect en_US
dc.subject misconceptions en_US
dc.subject.classification Medicine en_US
dc.title Hawthorne effect reporting in orthodontic randomized controlled trials : truth or myth? Blessing or curse? en_US
dc.type Article, review peer-reviewed scientific en_US
dc.contributor.department Malmö University. Faculty of Odontology
dc.identifier.doi 10.1093/ejo/cjx089 en_US
dc.subject.srsc Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpublication European Journal of Orthodontics;
dc.description.authorversion Yes en_US
dc.format.ePage 479
dc.format.sPage 475
 Find Full text Files for download
Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Overview

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics