ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2017
Challenges in conducting multicentre, multidisciplinary, longitudinal studies in children with chronic conditions.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-centric clinic trials in evidence-based research - A narrative review on the Indian scenario.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Review
- Quality-of-Life in Children with Orofacial Clefts and Caregiver Well-being.Journal of dental research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConducting longitudinal, multicentre, multidisciplinary research for individuals with chronic conditions can be challenging. Despite careful planning, investigative teams must adapt to foreseen and unforeseen problems. Our objective is to identify challenges encountered and solutions sought in a recently completed observational, longitudinal study of youth with cleft lip and palate as well as their caregivers.
methodsData for analysis were derived from a 6-year, multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study of youth with cleft conducted from 2009 to 2015 that examined oral health-related quality of life and other related clinical observations over time in youth who had cleft-related surgery compared to those who did not. Youth and their caregivers participating in this study were followed at one of six geographically diverse, multidisciplinary cleft treatment centres in the USA.
resultsEstablishing effective communication, ensuring protocol adherence, safeguarding data quality, recognizing and managing differences across sites, maximizing participant retention, dealing with study personnel turnover, and balancing/addressing clinical and research tasks were particularly exigent issues that arose over the course of the study. Attending to process, ongoing communication within and across sites, and investigator and clinician commitment and flexibility were required to achieve the stated aims of the research.
conclusionStudying children with cleft and their caregivers over time created both foreseen and unforeseen challenges. Solutions to these challenges are presented to aid in the design of future longitudinal research in individuals with chronic conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.