ArticleEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2024
The impact of bias of underlying literature in guidelines on its recommendations: assessment of the German fluoride guideline.
Article in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe significance of the underlying literature in clinical guidelines can be weakened by the risk of bias, which could negatively affect the recommendations. Especially in controversial matters, such as fluoride use for caries prevention in children, biased results may be not reliable and lead to incorrect conclusions. This study was performed to detect bias in underlying literature of the German guideline for caries prevention using fluoride in children, where no consensus was reached between paediatricians and paediatric dentists.
methodsThree tools used for risk of bias assessments of different study designs were RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, and ROBIS for systematic reviews. For each study cited in the guideline two independent risk of bias assessments were performed. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
resultsOut of 58 papers, 48.3% (n = 28) showed high risk of bias, with the majority in sections regarding fluoride tablets, fluoridated toothpaste, and paediatricians' recommendations. 9 out of 20 recommendations and statements were based on studies with high risk of bias, all of which were in these three controversial sections. 13 out of 29 RCTs showed high risk of bias (44.8%), as all 13 non-randomized trials did, while only 2 of 16 (12.5%) systematic reviews had high risk of bias.
conclusionConsidering risk of bias of cited studies in clinical guidelines may result in substantial changes in its recommendations and aid in reaching consensus. Efforts should be made to assess risk of bias of underlying literature in future clinical guidelines.
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.