SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Mapping risk of bias criteria in systematic reviews of in vitro endodontic studies: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antileishmanial Activity of Bioactive Compounds Obtained fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Proposed Risk of Bias Assessment Tool forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
aimsThe risk of bias (RoB) assessment is a critical aspect of systematic reviews, yet a lack of standardization in RoB criteria persists in the endodontic literature. This study aimed to evaluate the RoB tools used in systematic reviews (SRs) of in vitro endodontic studies to synthesize the most commonly employed criteria.
methodsA comprehensive search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted, identifying SRs with RoB evaluation. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers, focusing on the criteria used for RoB assessment. All SRs were categorized by main objective and the evaluation test. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/azd8u/ ).
resultsOf the 10,409 records initially identified, 142 systematic reviews (SRs) published between January 2018 and September 2024 met the inclusion criteria. These SRs employed 36 distinct RoB criteria, with the most common being blinding (40.9%), sample size (34.5%), adequate statistical analysis (31%), randomization (30.3%), and standardized sample preparation and handling (21.8%). DISCUSSION: Inconsistencies in the application of RoB criteria were evident, with many SRs employing tools adapted from clinical studies that were not fully suitable for the unique methodological requirements of in vitro research. Although some SRs attempted to adapt criteria from other studies, these adaptations often fell short of addressing the specific needs of in vitro studies. The absence of standardized tools compromises the reliability of current SRs and limits their comparability with future research.
conclusionsThe observed inconsistencies in RoB assessments across SRs of in vitro endodontic studies highlight the critical need for a standardized tool specifically designed for this context. Such a tool should account for the methodological nuances of in vitro research, including the relevance of criteria like blinding and sample size calculation, to enhance the reliability, reproducibility, and overall relevance of future SRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41225148What 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.