Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research

Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Pouria Iranparvar, Maryam Shakiba, Erfan Shamsoddin, Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi, Sadaf Naseri, Parisa Motie, Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone and Bita Mesgarpour
Additional contact information
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi: Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
Pouria Iranparvar: Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
Maryam Shakiba: Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
Erfan Shamsoddin: Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi: Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
Sadaf Naseri: School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
Parisa Motie: School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1983969411, Iran
Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone: Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, Brazil
Bita Mesgarpour: Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 14, 1-10

Abstract: Objectives: To assess the Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of published randomised clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. Materials and methods: All the published clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews until 1 June 2020 were identified and examined. RoB was assessed for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study using Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each variable in the study sample. Results: Out of a total of 2565 included studies, the majority ( n = 1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. Regarding blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Among the various domains of bias, the performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB, compared to 11.1% with a low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had a higher percentage of low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). Additionally, the double- and triple-blind studies had higher percentages of low ORoB (23.6% and 23.3%, respectively), while the studies with a crossover design had the highest percentage of low ORoB (28.8%). Conclusion: The RoB of oral health studies published as Cochrane reviews was deemed high.

Keywords: bias; clinical trial; systematic review; dentistry; evidence-based dentistry; risk (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7284/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7284/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7284-:d:590209

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().