Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad, Iranparvar, Pouria, Shakiba, Maryam, Shamsoddin, Erfan, Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein, Naseri, Sadaf, Motie, Parisa, Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto, Mesgarpour, Bita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8306360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34299733
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147284
_version_ 1783727790513717248
author Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad
Iranparvar, Pouria
Shakiba, Maryam
Shamsoddin, Erfan
Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein
Naseri, Sadaf
Motie, Parisa
Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto
Mesgarpour, Bita
author_facet Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad
Iranparvar, Pouria
Shakiba, Maryam
Shamsoddin, Erfan
Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein
Naseri, Sadaf
Motie, Parisa
Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto
Mesgarpour, Bita
author_sort Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8306360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83063602021-07-25 Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad Iranparvar, Pouria Shakiba, Maryam Shamsoddin, Erfan Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein Naseri, Sadaf Motie, Parisa Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto Mesgarpour, Bita Int J Environ Res Public Health Article 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. MDPI 2021-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8306360/ /pubmed/34299733 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147284 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad
Iranparvar, Pouria
Shakiba, Maryam
Shamsoddin, Erfan
Mohammad-Rahimi, Hossein
Naseri, Sadaf
Motie, Parisa
Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto
Mesgarpour, Bita
Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title_full Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title_fullStr Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title_full_unstemmed Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title_short Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research
title_sort quality assessment of studies included in cochrane oral health systematic reviews: a meta-research
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8306360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34299733
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147284
work_keys_str_mv AT sofimahmudiahmad qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT iranparvarpouria qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT shakibamaryam qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT shamsoddinerfan qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT mohammadrahimihossein qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT naserisadaf qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT motieparisa qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT tovanipalonemarcosroberto qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch
AT mesgarpourbita qualityassessmentofstudiesincludedincochraneoralhealthsystematicreviewsametaresearch