Despina Koletsi1, Loukia M Spineli2, Evangelia Lempesi3, Nikolaos Pandis4. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens and Private Practice, Athens, Greece, d.koletsi@gmail.com. 2. Institut für Biometrie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Germany. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens and Private Practice, Athens, Greece. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Switzerland, and Private Practice, Corfu, Greece.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the risk of bias (RoB) in a subset of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals using the Cochrane RoB tool and to identify associations between domain RoB assessment and treatment effect estimates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive issues of four major orthodontic journals were electronically searched to identify RCTs. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, which involves seven domains rated as 'low', 'unclear' or 'high': random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting, and other threats to internal validity. Estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were recorded or calculated where possible for binary and continuous outcome measures. Meta-regression models were employed to assess the impact of RoB per domain on the magnitude of treatment effect. RESULTS: One hundred and one eligible studies involving 128 pair-wise comparisons were retrieved. Blinding of outcome assessors and incomplete outcome data were frequently judged as 'high' for RoB both for studies with binary and continuous outcome (42.9 and 48.8 per cent, respectively). For binary outcomes, high RoB regarding random sequence generation [odds ratio (OR): 5.97, 95% CI: 2.03, 17.63, P-value: 0.002] and incomplete outcome data (OR: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.03, 16.15, P-value: 0.05) were more likely to provide exaggerated effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improved clinical trial methodology and reporting, in order to avoid inflated associations and erroneous conclusions.
AIM: To assess the risk of bias (RoB) in a subset of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals using the Cochrane RoB tool and to identify associations between domain RoB assessment and treatment effect estimates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive issues of four major orthodontic journals were electronically searched to identify RCTs. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, which involves seven domains rated as 'low', 'unclear' or 'high': random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting, and other threats to internal validity. Estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were recorded or calculated where possible for binary and continuous outcome measures. Meta-regression models were employed to assess the impact of RoB per domain on the magnitude of treatment effect. RESULTS: One hundred and one eligible studies involving 128 pair-wise comparisons were retrieved. Blinding of outcome assessors and incomplete outcome data were frequently judged as 'high' for RoB both for studies with binary and continuous outcome (42.9 and 48.8 per cent, respectively). For binary outcomes, high RoB regarding random sequence generation [odds ratio (OR): 5.97, 95% CI: 2.03, 17.63, P-value: 0.002] and incomplete outcome data (OR: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.03, 16.15, P-value: 0.05) were more likely to provide exaggerated effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improved clinical trial methodology and reporting, in order to avoid inflated associations and erroneous conclusions.
Authors: Ethan M Balk; Peter A L Bonis; Harry Moskowitz; Christopher H Schmid; John P A Ioannidis; Chenchen Wang; Joseph Lau Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-06-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Savović; He Jones; Dg Altman; Rj Harris; P Jűni; J Pildal; B Als-Nielsen; Em Balk; C Gluud; Ll Gluud; Jpa Ioannidis; Kf Schulz; R Beynon; N Welton; L Wood; D Moher; Jj Deeks; Jac Sterne Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Ognjen Barcot; Matija Boric; Svjetlana Dosenovic; Marija Cavar; Antonia Jelicic Kadic; Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Ivana Vukicevic; Ivana Vuka; Livia Puljak Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.615