The transparency of reporting 'harms' encountered with the surgically assisted acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement in the published randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

Progress in Orthodontics

Table 4 Distribution of harms reporting (Yes/No) across other variables and the results of binary logistic regression modeling

Factors	Harms reporting		β	OR [95% CI]^¶	P value^¶
Factors	Yes, n (%)	No, n (%)	β	OR [95% CI]^¶	P value^¶
HDI
Very high HDI	14 (37.8)	9 (16.7)		Reference
High HDI	7 (18.9)	5 (9.3)	− 0.132	0.87 [0.18–4.25]	0.870
Medium HDI	16 (43.2)	40 (74.1)	0.928	2.52 [0.60–10.49]	0.201
Journal's Quartile
Q1	17 (45.9)	14 (25.9)		Reference
Q2	12 (32.4)	10 (18.5)	− 0.721	0.48 [0.12–1.92]	0.304
Q3	5 (13.5)	9 (16.7)	0.042	1.04 [0.18–5.82]	0.962
Q4	1 (2.7)	3 (5.6)	− 1.049	0.35 [0.01–6.99]	0.492
Not indexed	2 (5.4)	18 (33.3)	1.625	5.07 [0.79–32.43]	0.086
Invasiveness of the SAAO
Invasive	4 (10.8)	19 (35.2)		Reference
Minimally invasive	30 (81.1)	30 (55.6)	− 1.799	0.16 [0.03–0.73]	0.018*
Combination of IP and MIP in PG or SMDs	3 (8.1)	5 (9.3)	− 1.700	0.18 [0.01–1.76]	0.142

OR Odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, HDI Human Development Index, Q Quartile, SAAO Surgically assisted accelerated orthodontics, IP Invasive procedure, MIP Minimally invasive procedure, PG Parallel group, SMDs Split mouth designs
^¶Binary logistic regression results
^*Significant at the level of 0.05