Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-2014 : A methodology study

作者: Humam Saltaji , Maria B. Ospina , Susan Armijo-Olivo , Shruti Agarwal , Greta G. Cummings

DOI: 10.1016/J.ADAJ.2016.03.017

关键词: Randomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPsychological interventionOral healthAlternative medicineSystematic reviewClinical trialFamily medicineLogistic regressionMedicine

摘要: Abstract Background The authors aimed to describe how often and by what means investigators assessed the risk of bias clinical trials in systematic reviews oral health interventions identify factors associated with assessments. Methods selected therapeutic published from 1991 through 2014. They extracted data related tools used for assessment primary studies other review characteristics. descriptively analyzed multivariate logistic regression. Results identified 1,114 (130 Cochrane 984 non-Cochrane reviews). 61.4% reviews, assessments occurred more than (100% versus 56.3%; P Conclusions did not undertake a considerable portion reviews. dental journals were less likely assess nondental journals. results this study provide evidence need improving conduct reporting respect assessment. Practical Implications Clinicians should determine extent findings are valid on basis whether considered during interpretation findings.

参考文章(38)
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Isabelle Boutron, Lucy Turner, Douglas G Altman, David Moher, Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ,(2013) , 10.1002/14651858.ED000058
Jadbinder Seehra, Nikolaos Pandis, Despina Koletsi, Padhraig S. Fleming, Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 69, pp. 179- ,(2016) , 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2015.06.023
Nikolaos Pandis, Padhraig S. Fleming, Helen Worthington, Georgia Salanti, The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews PLOS ONE. ,vol. 10, pp. e0131644- ,(2015) , 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0131644
Susan Armijo-Olivo, Bruno R. da Costa, Greta G. Cummings, Christine Ha, Jorge Fuentes, Humam Saltaji, Matthias Egger, PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study PLOS ONE. ,vol. 10, pp. e0132634- ,(2015) , 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0132634
Arianne P. Verhagen, Henrica C.W. de Vet, Robert A. de Bie, Alphons G.H. Kessels, Maarten Boers, Lex M. Bouter, Paul G. Knipschild, The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 51, pp. 1235- 1241 ,(1998) , 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0
Clovis M. Faggion, Fahd Huda, Jason Wasiak, Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 41, pp. 625- 631 ,(2014) , 10.1111/JCPE.12251
Juliana Kiriakou, Nikolaos Pandis, Padhraig S. Fleming, Phoebus Madianos, Argy Polychronopoulou, Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. Journal of Dentistry. ,vol. 41, pp. 1181- 1187 ,(2013) , 10.1016/J.JDENT.2013.09.006
Jelena Savović, Hayley E. Jones, Douglas G. Altman, Ross J. Harris, Peter Jüni, Julie Pildal, Bodil Als-Nielsen, Ethan M. Balk, Christian Gluud, Lise Lotte Gluud, John P.A. Ioannidis, Kenneth F. Schulz, Rebecca Beynon, Nicky J. Welton, Lesley Wood, David Moher, Jonathan J. Deeks, Jonathan A.C. Sterne, Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. ,vol. 157, pp. 429- 438 ,(2012) , 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537
Alejandro R. Jadad, R.Andrew Moore, Dawn Carroll, Crispin Jenkinson, D.John M. Reynolds, David J. Gavaghan, Henry J. McQuay, Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. ,vol. 17, pp. 1- 12 ,(1996) , 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
Lisa Hartling, Michele P Hamm, Andrea Milne, Ben Vandermeer, P Lina Santaguida, Mohammed Ansari, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Susanne Hempel, Paul Shekelle, Donna M Dryden, None, Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ,vol. 66, pp. 973- 981 ,(2013) , 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2012.07.005