ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2011
Assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the field of dentistry indexed in the Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) database.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevention and treatment of bone loss and fractures in patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone marrow transplantation · 2017Pooled it
- Detecting the extent of control over selection bias relating to oral health and otorhinolaryngology: cross-sectional study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2020Article
- Endodontic epidemiology.Iranian endodontic journal · 2014Review
- Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectiveWell-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the highest level of evidence when the research question relates to the effect of therapeutic or preventive interventions. However, the degree of control over bias between RCTs presents great variability between studies. For this reason, with the increasing interest in and production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it has been necessary to develop methodology supported by empirical evidence, so as to encourage and enhance the production of valid RCTs with low risk of bias. The aim here was to conduct a methodological analysis within the field of dentistry, regarding the risk of bias in open-access RCTs available in the Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) database. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a methodology study conducted at Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) that assessed the risk of bias in RCTs, using the following dimensions: allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and data on incomplete outcomes.
resultsOut of the 4,503 articles classified, only 10 studies (0.22%) were considered to be true RCTs and, of these, only a single study was classified as presenting low risk of bias. The items that the authors of these RCTs most frequently controlled for were blinding and data on incomplete outcomes.
conclusionThe effective presence of bias seriously weakened the reliability of the results from the dental studies evaluated, such that they would be of little use for clinicians and administrators as support for decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.