SynthesisPloS one2015
Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Frequency of Neurologic Manifestations in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Dose-response-relationship of stabilisation exercises in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-regression.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists.
objectiveThe objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry.
methodsA search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses of RCTs published in periodontology and implant dentistry fields, was performed in the Cochrane Library in September 2014. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed by grouping RCTs with different levels of ROBs in three domains (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment). To increase power and precision, only SRs with meta-analyses including at least 10 RCTs were included. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the association between ROB characteristics and the magnitudes of intervention effects in the meta-analyses.
resultsOf the 24 initially screened SRs, 21 SRs were excluded because they did not include at least 10 RCTs in the meta-analyses. Three SRs (two from periodontology field) generated information for conducting 27 meta-analyses. Meta-regression did not reveal significant differences in the relationship of the ROB level with the size of treatment effect estimates, although a trend for inflated estimates was observed in domains with unclear ROBs.
conclusionIn this sample of RCTs, high and (mainly) unclear risks of selection and detection biases did not seem to influence the size of treatment effect estimates, although several confounders might have influenced the strength of the association.
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.