ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2020
Detecting the extent of control over selection bias relating to oral health and otorhinolaryngology: cross-sectional study.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe authors of randomized controlled trials will usually claim that they have met the randomization process criterion. However, sequence generation schemes differ and some schemes that are claimed to be randomized are not genuinely randomized. Even less well understood, and often more difficult to ascertain, is whether the allocation was really concealed.
objectiveTo detect the extent of control over selection bias, in a comparison between two Cochrane groups: oral health and otorhinolaryngology; and to describe the methods used to control for this bias. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional study conducted in a public university in São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsThe risk of selection bias in 1,714 records indexed in Medline database up to 2018 was assessed, independent of language and access. Two dimensions implicated in the allocation were considered: generation of the allocation sequence; and allocation concealment.
resultsWe included 420 randomized controlled trials and all of them were evaluated to detect selection bias. In the sample studied, only 28 properly controlled the selection bias. Lack of control over selection bias was present in 80% of the studies evaluated in both groups.
conclusionThe two groups were similar regarding control over selection bias. They are also similar to the methods used. The dimension of allocation concealment appears to be a limiting factor with regard to production of randomized controlled trials with low risk of selection bias. The quality of reporting in studies on oral health and otorhinolaryngology is suboptimal and needs to be improved, in line with other fields of healthcare.
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.