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 50 条
  • [1] Reply: Quality assessment of studies included in systematic reviews
    Boelig, Rupsa C.
    Saccone, Gabriele
    Berghella, Vincenzo
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2022, 4 (05)
  • [2] Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews in Family Nursing: A Meta-research Study
    Kajiwara, Kohei
    Ito, Yoshiyasu
    Tsubaki, Michihiro
    Kobayashi, Masamitsu
    Kakeda, Takahiro
    Kako, Jun
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 36 (01) : 111 - 114
  • [3] Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study
    Shruti Jayakumar
    Viknesh Sounderajah
    Pasha Normahani
    Leanne Harling
    Sheraz R. Markar
    Hutan Ashrafian
    Ara Darzi
    [J]. npj Digital Medicine, 5
  • [4] Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies
    Yaffe, Joanne
    Montgomery, Paul
    Hopewell, Sally
    Shepard, Lindsay Dianne
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [5] Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study
    Jayakumar, Shruti
    Sounderajah, Viknesh
    Normahani, Pasha
    Harling, Leanne
    Markar, Sheraz R.
    Ashrafian, Hutan
    Darzi, Ara
    [J]. NPJ DIGITAL MEDICINE, 2022, 5 (01)
  • [6] Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment
    Smail-Faugeron, Violaine
    Fron-Chabouis, Helene
    Courson, Frederic
    [J]. BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2014, 14
  • [7] Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment
    Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron
    Hélène Fron-Chabouis
    Frédéric Courson
    [J]. BMC Oral Health, 14
  • [8] New Cochrane systematic reviews, Cochrane Oral Health Group
    Emma Tavender
    [J]. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2002, 3 (1) : 20 - 21
  • [9] Completeness of reporting of systematic reviews in the animal health literature: A meta-research study
    Sargeant, Jan M.
    Reynolds, Kristen
    Winder, Charlotte B.
    O'Connor, Annette M.
    [J]. PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2021, 195
  • [10] Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review
    Lund, Hans
    Robinson, Karen A.
    Gjerland, Ane
    Nykvist, Hanna
    Drachen, Thea Marie
    Christensen, Robin
    Juhl, Carsten Bogh
    Jamtvedt, Gro
    Nortvedt, Monica
    Bjerrum, Merete
    Westmore, Matt
    Yost, Jennifer
    Brunnhuber, Klara
    Network, Evidence-Based Research
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)