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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |