Objective–Conclusion Consistency in Abstracts of Orthodontic Randomized Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study
Mutaz Arman
ABSTRACT
Background: Randomized clinical trial abstracts strongly influence literature screening and clinical interpretation. Although previous orthodontic meta-research has assessed whether objectives and conclusions are reported, less attention has been given to whether the conclusion actually answers the objective stated in the same abstract.
Objective: To evaluate the consistency between stated objectives and conclusions in a cross-sectional sample of 200 PubMed-indexed randomized orthodontic clinical trial abstracts published from 2023 through 2025, and to characterize the main types of mismatches.
Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE was searched using a core orthodontic randomized-trial strategy supplemented by topic-specific searches. Eligible human randomized orthodontic trial reports with an identifiable abstract objective and conclusion were sampled until 200 unique reports were confirmed. Objective–conclusion consistency was assessed across four prespecified domains: population/clinical context, intervention/comparator, outcome/intended effect, and scope of inference. Abstracts were classified as fully consistent, partially consistent, or inconsistent. Wilson 95% confidence intervals were calculated for prevalence estimates, and consistency across publication years was compared using a chi-square test. All non-full ratings underwent a second audit.
Results: Among 200 abstracts, 176 were fully consistent (88.0%; 95% CI 82.8–91.8), 23 were partially consistent (11.5%; 95% CI 7.8–16.7), and 1 was inconsistent (0.5%; 95% CI 0.1–2.8). Full consistency was observed in 50/58 abstracts from 2023 (86.2%), 57/60 from 2024 (95.0%), and 69/82 from 2025 (84.1%); the difference by publication year was not statistically significant (χ²=4.11, P=0.128). Among the 24 abstracts that were not fully consistent, the most common problem was broadening the scope or introducing an unstated claim (12/24, 50.0%), followed by omission of a stated objective or outcome (8/24, 33.3%).
Conclusion: Most recent randomized orthodontic trial abstracts showed good internal alignment between their stated objectives and conclusions. Nevertheless, approximately one in eight was not fully consistent, most often because the conclusion broadened the clinical message or omitted part of the stated objective. Explicit objective–conclusion checking during writing, peer review, and editorial assessment may improve the interpretability of orthodontic trial abstracts.
