Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24886043›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014

Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Hélène Fron-Chabouis, Frédéric Courson, Pierre Durieux

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. The effect of premature extraction of primary teeth on the subsequent need for orthodontic treatment.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2016
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Violaine Smaïl-FaugeronInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, U1138, Equipe 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France. violaine.smail-faugeron@parisdescartes.fr.
Hélène Fron-Chabouis
Frédéric Courson
Pierre Durieux

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSplit-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are popular in oral health research. Meta-analyses frequently include trials of both split-mouth and parallel-arm designs to derive combined intervention effects. However, carry-over effects may induce bias in split- mouth RCTs. We aimed to assess whether intervention effect estimates differ between split- mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same questions.

methodsWe performed a meta-epidemiological study. We systematically reviewed meta- analyses including both split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs with binary or continuous outcomes published up to February 2013. Two independent authors selected studies and extracted data. We used a two-step approach to quantify the differences between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs: for each meta-analysis. First, we derived ratios of odds ratios (ROR) for dichotomous data and differences in standardized mean differences (∆SMD) for continuous data; second, we pooled RORs or ∆SMDs across meta-analyses by random-effects meta-analysis models.

resultsWe selected 18 systematic reviews, for 15 meta-analyses with binary outcomes (28 split-mouth and 28 parallel-arm RCTs) and 19 meta-analyses with continuous outcomes (45 split-mouth and 48 parallel-arm RCTs). [corrected]. Effect estimates did not differ between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs (mean ROR, 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.52-1.80; mean ∆SMD, 0.08, -0.14-0.30).

conclusionsOur study did not provide sufficient evidence for a difference in intervention effect estimates derived from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs. Authors should consider including split-mouth RCTs in their meta-analyses with suitable and appropriate analysis.

Indexed as

Oral HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDental ResearchHumansOdds Ratio

Identifiers

PMID24886043
PMCPMC4023173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.