ReviewJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2020
Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry: A comparative systematic review.
Review in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to determine the improvement in quality of the reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in paediatric dentistry. The quality of reporting during the period 2014-2015 was compared with the quality of reporting during 1985-2006.
methodsThis systematic review compared the scientific quality of RCTs in paediatric dentistry published in five paediatric dentistry journals during the defined periods. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist of 2010 was used to evaluate the quality of reporting. The inter-reviewers' agreement was assessed by calculating the kappa score, and disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consequent discussion. The
resultsA total of 40 articles were included. Although the quality of reporting showed considerable heterogeneity, the overall quality of reporting by RCTs was satisfactory and had improved over the years.
conclusionsUsing CONSORT checklist, this study showed general improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs published in pediatric dentistry journals in all article's sections.
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.