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
  • [11] GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias)
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Vist, Gunn
    Kunz, Regina
    Brozek, Jan
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Montori, Victor
    Akl, Elie A.
    Djulbegovic, Ben
    Falck-Ytter, Yngve
    Norris, Susan L.
    Williams, John W., Jr.
    Atkins, David
    Meerpohl, Joerg
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (04) : 407 - 415
  • [12] Higgins JPT., 2021, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  • [13] The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    Jueni, Peter
    Moher, David
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Savovic, Jelena
    Schulz, Kenneth F.
    Weeks, Laura
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343
  • [14] A Century of Change towards Prevention and Minimal Intervention in Cariology
    Innes, N. P. T.
    Chu, C. H.
    Fontana, M.
    Lo, E. C. M.
    Thomson, W. M.
    Uribe, S.
    Heiland, M.
    Jepsen, S.
    Schwendicke, F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2019, 98 (06) : 611 - 617
  • [15] How do we decide? Knowledge? Experience? Research?
    Elizabeth Kay
    [J]. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2020, 21 (1) : 4 - 4
  • [16] Selective versus non-selective removal for dental caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Li, Ti
    Zhai, Xiangkai
    Song, Feifei
    Zhu, Hongguang
    [J]. ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2018, 76 (02) : 135 - 140
  • [17] Miller S., 2001, J Evid Based Dental Prac, V1, P136, DOI [10.1067/med.2001.118720, DOI 10.1067/MED.2001.118720, DOI 10.1016/S1532-3382(01)70024-3]
  • [18] Petticrew M, 2002, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V324, P545
  • [19] A novel open-source web-based platform promoting collaboration of healthcare professionals and biostatisticians: A design science approach
    Raptis, Dimitri A.
    Mettler, Tobias
    Tzanas, Kostas
    Graf, Rolf
    [J]. INFORMATICS FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE, 2012, 37 (01) : 22 - 36
  • [20] Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013
    Saltaji, Humam
    Armijo-Olivo, Susan
    Cummings, Greta G.
    Amin, Maryam
    Flores-Mir, Carlos
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (12):