ArticleBMC oral health2024
CONSORT statement adherence and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials on deep caries management: a meta-research.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variability among large language models in assessing CONSORT compliance of published randomized clinical trials.PloS one · 2026Article
- Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Elective Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundRecently, trials have supported changes in deep caries management. However, reporting might lack details, affecting interpretation and implementation. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT statement and the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep caries management published in pediatric dental journals.
methodsWe searched PubMed for RCTs in six pediatric dental journals between 2010 and 2022, focusing on deep caries lesion management. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline and the risk of bias were assessed using a modified tool with 19 items; each scored from 0 to 2 (maximum of 38 points), and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. We performed descriptive and regression analyses (α = 5%).
resultsWe analyzed 127 RCTs. The mean (standard deviation) CONSORT adherence score was 21.1 (6.7). Notably, 96.1% of the studies received a score of 2 for the "intervention" item, whereas 83.5% scored 0 for the "estimated effect size". The risk of bias assessment revealed that 40.2% of the RCTs were at high risk, 59% were at low risk, and 0.8% were at low risk. RCTs with a high risk of bias had lower CONSORT scores (p<0.001) than those with low or some concerns. RCTs published in journals without the endorsement of the CONSORT statement had lower scores than those in journals with the endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Older RCTs (6-10 years old and more than 10 years old) showed significantly lower CONSORT statement compliance than trials published recently within 5 years.
conclusionAdherence to the CONSORT was relatively low among the investigated RCTs. Moreover, lower adherence to the CONSORT was associated with a higher risk of bias.
trial registrationThis study protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework - DOI ( 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6SYZ ).
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.