Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research

被引:3
作者
Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad [1 ]
Iranparvar, Pouria [1 ]
Shakiba, Maryam [1 ]
Shamsoddin, Erfan [1 ]
Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein [2 ]
Naseri, Sadaf [3 ]
Motie, Parisa [3 ]
Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto [4 ]
Mesgarpour, Bita [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Med Res Dev NIMAD, Cochrane Iran Associate Ctr, Tehran 1419693111, Iran
[2] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Res Inst Dent Sci, Dent Res Ctr, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
[3] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Sch Dent, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
[4] Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, BR-14049900 Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
关键词
bias; clinical trial; systematic review; dentistry; evidence-based dentistry; risk; EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY; COLLABORATION; INTERVENTION; VALIDITY; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.3390/ijerph18147284
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Objectives: To assess the Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of published randomised clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. Materials and methods: All the published clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews until 1 June 2020 were identified and examined. RoB was assessed for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study using Cochrane's RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each variable in the study sample. Results: Out of a total of 2565 included studies, the majority (n = 1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. Regarding blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Among the various domains of bias, the performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB, compared to 11.1% with a low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had a higher percentage of low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). Additionally, the double- and triple-blind studies had higher percentages of low ORoB (23.6% and 23.3%, respectively), while the studies with a crossover design had the highest percentage of low ORoB (28.8%). Conclusion: The RoB of oral health studies published as Cochrane reviews was deemed high.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] Afrashtehfar KI, 2017, SAUDI DENT J, V29, P83, DOI 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.02.002
  • [2] STATISTICS NOTES - ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
    ALTMAN, DG
    BLAND, JM
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 311 (7003) : 485 - 485
  • [3] A road map for designing and reporting clinical trials in paediatric dentistry
    Araujo, Mariana Pinheiro
    Al-Yaseen, Waraf
    Innes, Nicola Patricia
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 31 : 14 - 22
  • [4] Cheung YB, 2001, ANN ACAD MED SINGAP, V30, P552
  • [5] EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY: TWO DECADES AND BEYOND
    Chiappelli, Francesco
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2019, 19 (01) : 7 - 16
  • [6] Evidence-based dentistry: An overview
    Dhar, Vineet
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL DENTISTRY, 2016, 7 (03) : 293 - +
  • [7] Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials
    Eldridge, Sandra
    Ashby, Deborah
    Bennett, Catherine
    Wakelin, Melanie
    Feder, Gene
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7649): : 876 - 880
  • [8] Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews
    Faggion, Clovis Mariano, Jr.
    Aranda, Luisiana
    Pandi, Nikolaos
    Antonio Alarcon, Marco
    Tatiana Diaz, Karla
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2019, 80 : 63 - 68
  • [9] Gillette Jane, 2009, Dent Clin North Am, V53, P33, DOI 10.1016/j.cden.2008.09.002
  • [10] Bias in clinical intervention research
    Gluud, LL
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 163 (06) : 493 - 501