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 trial 、 Meta-analysis 、 Psychological intervention 、 Oral health 、 Alternative medicine 、 Systematic review 、 Clinical trial 、 Family medicine 、 Logistic regression 、 Medicine
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.