ArticlePloS one2017
Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does immediate dentin sealing influence postoperative sensitivity in teeth restored with indirect restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2022Pooled it
- Patient morbidity after impacted third molar extraction with different flap designs. A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparative assessment of Cochrane's ROB and ROB2 in dentistry trials: a meta-research study.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Review
- Reporting Sample Size Calculation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 4 Orthodontic Journals.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2021Article
- Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The influence of flap design on patients' experiencing pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery: a scoping systematic review.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Article
- Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020Article
- Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2019Review
- Influence of blinding on treatment effect size estimate in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions and the development of these aspects over time.
methodsWe included 540 randomized clinical trials from 64 selected systematic reviews. We extracted, in duplicate, details from each of the selected randomized clinical trials with respect to publication and trial characteristics, reporting and methodologic characteristics, and Cochrane risk of bias domains. We analyzed data using logistic regression and Chi-square statistics.
resultsSequence generation was assessed to be inadequate (at unclear or high risk of bias) in 68% (n = 367) of the trials, while allocation concealment was inadequate in the majority of trials (n = 464; 85.9%). Blinding of participants and blinding of the outcome assessment were judged to be inadequate in 28.5% (n = 154) and 40.5% (n = 219) of the trials, respectively. A sample size calculation before the initiation of the study was not performed/reported in 79.1% (n = 427) of the trials, while the sample size was assessed as adequate in only 17.6% (n = 95) of the trials. Two thirds of the trials were not described as double blinded (n = 358; 66.3%), while the method of blinding was appropriate in 53% (n = 286) of the trials. We identified a significant decrease over time (1955-2013) in the proportion of trials assessed as having inadequately addressed methodological quality items (P < 0.05) in 30 out of the 40 quality criteria, or as being inadequate (at high or unclear risk of bias) in five domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, other sources of bias, and overall risk of bias.
conclusionsThe risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions have improved over time; however, further efforts that contribute to the development of more stringent methodology and detailed reporting of trials are still needed.
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.