IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i14p7284-d590209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi

    (Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
    Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi and Pouria Iranparvar had equal contributions and both are first-authors.)

  • Pouria Iranparvar

    (Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran
    Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi and Pouria Iranparvar had equal contributions and both are first-authors.)

  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi & Pouria Iranparvar & Maryam Shakiba & Erfan Shamsoddin & Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi & Sadaf Naseri & Parisa Motie & Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone & Bita Mesgarpour, 2021. "Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-10, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7284-:d:590209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7284/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7284/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7284-:d:590209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.