ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions connecting young people living in Africa to healthcare; a systematic review using the RE-AIM framework.Frontiers in health services · 2024Review
- Research Question, Objectives, and Endpoints in Clinical and Oncological Research: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of published randomised clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll the published clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews until 1 June 2020 were identified and examined. RoB was assessed for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study using Cochrane's RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each variable in the study sample.
resultsOut of a total of 2565 included studies, the majority (
conclusionThe RoB of oral health studies published as Cochrane reviews was deemed high.
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.