Literature DB >> 28813182

Impact of Selection Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

H Saltaji1, S Armijo-Olivo2,3, G G Cummings4, M Amin5, B R da Costa6, C Flores-Mir1.   

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that design flaws of randomized controlled trials can result in over- or underestimation of the treatment effect size (ES). The objective of this study was to examine associations between treatment ES estimates and adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, and baseline comparability among a sample of oral health randomized controlled trials. For our analysis, we selected all meta-analyses that included a minimum of 5 oral health randomized controlled trials and used continuous outcomes. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to items of selection bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and baseline comparability) in the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Using a 2-level meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity, we quantified the impact of selection bias on the magnitude of ES estimates. We identified 64 meta-analyses, including 540 randomized controlled trials analyzing 137,957 patients. Sequence generation was judged to be adequate (at low risk of bias) in 32% ( n = 173) of trials, and baseline comparability was judged to be adequate in 77.8% of trials. Allocation concealment was unclear in the majority of trials ( n = 458, 84.8%). We identified significantly larger treatment ES estimates in trials that had inadequate/unknown sequence generation (difference in ES = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.25) and inadequate/unknown allocation concealment (difference in ES = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.27). In contrast, baseline imbalance (difference in ES = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.12) was not associated with inflated or underestimated ES. In conclusion, treatment ES estimates were 0.13 and 0.15 larger in trials with inadequate/unknown sequence generation and inadequate/unknown allocation concealment, respectively. Therefore, authors of systematic reviews using oral health randomized controlled trials should perform sensitivity analyses based on the adequacy of sequence generation and allocation concealment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias (epidemiology); dentistry; meta-analysis; randomized controlled trial; research methodology; study quality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28813182     DOI: 10.1177/0022034517725049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  4 in total

1.  Efficacy of autogenous teeth for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge deficiencies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ausra Ramanauskaite; D Sahin; R Sader; J Becker; F Schwarz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013.

Authors:  Humam Saltaji; Susan Armijo-Olivo; Greta G Cummings; Maryam Amin; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Influence of blinding on treatment effect size estimate in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions.

Authors:  Humam Saltaji; Susan Armijo-Olivo; Greta G Cummings; Maryam Amin; Bruno R da Costa; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  The influence of flap design on patients' experiencing pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery: a scoping systematic review.

Authors:  Gennaro DE Marco; Alessandro Lanza; Corina M Cristache; Estefani B Capcha; Karen I Espinoza; Rosario Rullo; Rolando Vernal; Emilio A Cafferata; Fabrizio DI Francesco
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.698

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.