Clinical Trials in Dentistry: A Cross-sectional Analysis of World Health Organization-International Clinical Trial Registry Platform

IntroductionClinical trials are the back bone for evidence-based practice (EBP) and recently EBP has been considered the best source of treatment strategies available. Clinical trial registries serve as databases of clinical trials. As regards to dentistry in specific data on the number of clinical trials and their quality is lacking. Hence, the present study was envisaged.MethodClinical trials registered in WHO-ICTRP (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/AdvSearch.aspx) in dental specialties were considered. The details assessed from the collected trials include: Type of sponsors; Health condition; Recruitment status; Study design; randomization, method of randomization and allocation concealment; Single or multi-centric; Retrospective or prospective registration; and Publication status in case of completed studies.ResultsA total of 197 trials were identified. Maximum trials were from United States (n = 30) and United Kingdom (n = 38). Seventy six trials were registered in Clinical Trials.gov, 54 from International Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials, 13 each from Australia and New Zealand Trial Register and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, 10 from German Clinical Trial Registry, eight each from Brazilian Clinical Trial Registry and Nederland's Trial Register, seven from Japan Clinical Trial Registry, six from Clinical Trial Registry of India and two from Hong Kong Clinical Trial Registry. A total of 78.7% studies were investigator-initiated and 64% were completed while 3% were terminated. Nearly four-fifths of the registered trials (81.7%) were interventional studies of which randomized were the large majority (94.4%) with 63.2% being open label, 20.4% using single blinding technique and 16.4% were doubled blinded.ConclusionThe number, methodology and the characteristics of clinical trials in dentistry have been noted to be poor especially in terms of being conducted multi-centrically, employing blinding and the method for randomization and allocation concealment. More emphasis has to be laid down on the quality of trials being conducted in order to provide justice in the name of EBP.