Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29744198›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2017

Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Reviews may be based on trials not approved by a research ethics committee.

Asbjørn Jokstad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2017. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The efficacy and safety of bisphosphonate analogs for treatment of osteoporosis after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Quo Vadis, Cochrane Collaboration?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Asbjørn JokstadDepartment of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences UiT The Arctic University of Norway Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5902-4520

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SR) may potentially contain reports of primary trials with ethical problems. The Cochrane Collaboration SRs are considered as the highest standard in evidence-based health care resources. All SRs completed during the last 5 years (2013-2017) under the management of the Oral Health Group of the Cochrane Collaboration were identified. All primary trials included in the Oral Health Group SRs were identified and examined to establish their status regarding pre-hoc approval of an independent ethics committee (EC), often termed Institutional Review Board (IRB) before commencing recruitment of trial participants. Ninety-five SRs contained 960 primary trials, of which 272 (28.3%) were not examined by the author of this paper. Amongst the remaining 688 primary trials, 198 (29%) contained no reference to study conduct approval by a research ethics committee. The majority of primary studies referred to an EC/IRB approval with or without identifying the name of the ethics committee (n = 401, 58%), whereas some papers identified both the committee name and a protocol or reference number of the EC/IRB approval (n = 89, 13%). The Cochrane Collaboration, along with other developers of SRs, should adopt the policy established by COPE with regard to what to do if one suspect an ethical problem, that is, request evidence of EC/IRB approval. All stakeholders should rest assured that clinical policies and practices based on SRs are based on ethically sound clinical research.

Indexed as

biomedical researchevidence‐based practiceoral healthpolicyresearch ethics committees

Identifiers

PMID29744198
PMCPMC5839214

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.