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
  • [32] Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane Reviews?
    Hans Christian Kongsted
    Merete Konnerup
    [J]. BMC Research Notes, 5 (1)
  • [33] Obsolescence of the literature: A study of included studies in Cochrane reviews
    Faber, Frandsen Tove
    Eriksen, Mette Brandt
    Hammer, David Mortan Grone
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SCIENCE, 2023, 49 (02) : 437 - 447
  • [34] Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools
    Luchini, Claudio
    Veronese, Nicola
    Nottegar, Alessia
    Shin, Jae Il
    Gentile, Giovanni
    Granziol, Umberto
    Soysal, Pinar
    Alexinschi, Ovidiu
    Smith, Lee
    Solmi, Marco
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2021, 20 (01) : 185 - 195
  • [35] Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group
    Salehi-Pourmehr, Hanieh
    Naseri, Amirreza
    Mostafaei, Ali
    Vahedi, Leila
    Sajjadi, Sana
    Tayebi, Sona
    Mostafaei, Hadi
    Hajebrahimi, Sakineh
    [J]. TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 47 (05): : 392 - +
  • [36] Quality assessment for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies
    Qumseya, Bashar J.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2021, 93 (02) : 486 - +
  • [37] Mapping Systematic Reviews on the Management of Dental Caries in Primary Teeth: A Meta-Research
    Pascareli-Carlos, Aline Maquine
    Reis, Thais Marchezini
    de Novaes, Tatiane Fernandes
    Montagner, Anelise Fernandes
    van de Sande, Francoise Helene
    Gimenez, Thais
    Raggio, Daniela Procida
    Tedesco, Tamara Kerber
    [J]. CURRENT PEDIATRIC REVIEWS, 2024,
  • [38] AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study
    Puljak, Livia
    Bala, Malgorzata M.
    Mathes, Tim
    Pericic, Tina Poklepovic
    Wegewitz, Uta
    Faggion Jr, Clovis M.
    Matthias, Katja
    Storman, Dawid
    Zajac, Joanna
    Rombey, Tanja
    Bruschettini, Matteo
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 163 : 11 - 20
  • [39] NOT ALL COCHRANE REVIEWS ARE GOOD QUALITY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    Deshpande, S.
    Misso, K.
    Westwood, M.
    Stirk, L.
    de Kock, S.
    Kleijnen, J.
    Clayton, D.
    Kleijnen, J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (07) : A371 - A371
  • [40] Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol
    Gutierrez-Arias, Ruvistay
    Pieper, Dawid
    Nydahl, Peter
    Gonzalez-Seguel, Felipe
    Jalil, Yorschua
    Oliveros, Maria-Jose
    Torres-Castro, Rodrigo
    Seron, Pamela
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (07):