ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2017
Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Reviews may be based on trials not approved by a research ethics committee.
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.
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.
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- Application and efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Quo Vadis, Cochrane Collaboration?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2019Article
- Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Reviews may be based on trials not approved by a research ethics committee.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.