Literature DB >> 27136048

Has the quality of reporting in periodontology changed in 14 years? A systematic review.

Natalie M Leow1, Zahra Hussain2, Aviva Petrie3, Nikolaos Donos4, Ian G Needleman5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology has been poor. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines and an extension for non-pharmacologic trials (CONSORT-NPE), were introduced to aid in improving this. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in periodontology, changes over the last 14 years, and adherence to CONSORT-NPE.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials in humans, published in three periodontal journals, from 2013 to 2015 were included. Search was conducted through Medline, Embase and hand searching.
RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three full-text articles included. Two reviewers screened for reporting quality (κ = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.76). 84% of studies (n = 145) described randomization methods, 74% (n = 128) highlighted examiner blinding and 87% (n = 151) accounted for patients at study conclusion. Patient and caregiver blinding was addressed in 50% (n = 70) and 50% (n = 27) of studies respectively. 64% (n = 110) described adequate allocation concealment. Compared with Montenegro et al. (2002, Journal of Dental Research, 81, 866), improvements seen in describing randomization (2002, 16.5%; 2016, 84%), allocation concealment (2002, 6.5%; 2016, 64%), caregiver masking (2002, 17%; 2016, 50%). CONSORT-NPE; 62% (n = 107) had detailed explanations of all treatments, 88% (n = 152) lacked protocols for adherence of caregivers' to an intervention. Only 17% (n = 29) described caregivers' expertise and case volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial improvements have occurred. Attention is required for statistical analysis of patient losses and masking. CONSORT-NPE aspects were poorly reported.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; clinical trials; random allocation; randomized controlled trials; research design

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27136048     DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Periodontol        ISSN: 0303-6979            Impact factor:   8.728


  2 in total

Review 1.  Traditional or regenerative periodontal surgery?-a comparison of the publications between two periodontal journals over time.

Authors:  Noémie Staubli; Julia C Schmidt; Sabrina L Buset; Claudia J Gutekunst; Fabiola R Rodriguez; Patrick R Schmidlin; Clemens Walter
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years.

Authors:  L Xie; W Qin; Y Gu; J-L Pathak; S Zeng; M Du
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2020-09-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.