Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34444374›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children.

Rokiah Mamikutty, Ameera Syafiqah Aly, Jamaludin Marhazlinda

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 37 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 27 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nutrition and growth of primary ciliary dyskinesia patients: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

3 authors.

Rokiah MamikuttyDepartment of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia.
Ameera Syafiqah AlyDepartment of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia.
Jamaludin MarhazlindaDepartment of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In conducting a systematic review, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies is a vital step; thus, choosing the most pertinent risk of bias (ROB) tools is crucial. This paper determined the most appropriate ROB tools for assessing observational studies in a systematic review assessing the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. First, we determined the ROB tools used in previous reviews on a similar topic. Subsequently, we reviewed articles on ROB tools to identify the most recommended ROB tools for observational studies. Of the twelve ROB tools identified from the previous steps, three ROB tools that best fit the eight criteria of a good ROB tool were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for a cross-sectional study. We further assessed the inter-rater reliability for all three tools by analysing the percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa score. The overall percentage agreements and reliability scores of these tools ranged from good to excellent. Two ROB tools for the cross-sectional study were further evaluated qualitatively against nine of a tool's advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the AHRQ and NOS were selected as the most appropriate ROB tool to assess cross-sectional and cohort studies in the present review.

Indexed as

Dental CariesBiasCase-Control StudiesChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designbiaschildmethodsobservational studysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34444374
PMCPMC8391268

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.