Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-2014: A methodology study

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 147, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 720-728.e1

  Saltaji, Humam ^a   Ospina, Maria B ^a   Armijo Olivo, Susan ^a   Agarwal, Shruti ^a   Cummings, Greta G ^a   Amin, Maryam ^a   Flores Mir, Carlos ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

bias; Dentistry; meta analysis; randomized controlled trial; study quality; systematic review

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; META ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; ORAL SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; DENTAL PROCEDURE; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; DENTAL CARE; HUMANS; ORAL HEALTH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84964813177     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.03.017     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. 1 Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., Moher, D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:8 (2001), 663–694.
2. 2 Higgins, J.P., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.0, 2008, Cochrane Collaboration.
3. 3 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:10 (2009), 1006–1012.
4. 4 Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., Boccia, S., Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS One, 8(12), 2013, e83138.
5. 5 Needleman, I., Worthington, H., Moher, D., Schulz, K., Altman, D.G., Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health: the CONSORT statement. Am J Dent 21:1 (2008), 7–12.
6. 6 Saltaji, H., Cummings, G.G., Armijo-Olivo, S., et al. A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study. PloS One, 8(9), 2013, e74545.
7. 7 Pandis, N., Fleming, P.S., Worthington, H., Salanti, G., The quality of the evidence according to GRADE is predominantly low or very low in oral health systematic reviews. PLoS One, 10(7), 2015, e0131644.
8. 8 Lempesi, E., Koletsi, D., Fleming, P.S., Pandis, N., The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics. J Evid Based Dent Pract 14:2 (2014), 46–52.
9. 9 Kiriakou, J., Pandis, N., Fleming, P.S., Madianos, P., Polychronopoulou, A., Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent 41:12 (2013), 1181–1187.
10. 10 Higgins, J.P., Altman, D.G., Gotzsche, P.C., et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, 2011, d5928.
11. 11 Juni, P., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323:7303 (2001), 42–46.
12. 12 Armijo-Olivo, S., Fuentes, C.J., Ospina, M., Saltaji, H., Hartling, L., Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 116.
13. 13 Moher, D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., Walsh, S., Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16:1 (1995), 62–73.
14. 14 Faggion, C.M., Huda, F., Wasiak, J., Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 41:6 (2014), 625–631.
15. 15 American Dental Association. Specialty definitions: definitions of recognized dental specialties. Available at: http://www.ada.org/495.aspx. Accessed April 1, 2016.
16. 16 Cook, D.A., West, C.P., Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 46:10 (2012), 943–952.
17. 17 Olivo, S.A., Macedo, L.G., Gadotti, I.C., Fuentes, J., Stanton, T., Magee, D.J., Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88:2 (2008), 156–175.
18. 18 Higgins J, Altman DG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies (Chapter 8). In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed April 1, 2016.
19. 19 Jadad, A.R., Moore, R.A., Carroll, D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 17:1 (1996), 1–12.
20. 20 Chalmers, T.C., Smith, H. Jr., Blackburn, B., et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 2:1 (1981), 31–49.
21. 21 Verhagen, A.P., de Vet, H.C., de Bie, R.A., et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51:12 (1998), 1235–1241.
22. 22 Hadorn, D.C., Baker, D., Hodges, J.S., Hicks, N., Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 49:7 (1996), 749–754.
23. 23 Seehra, J., Pandis, N., Koletsi, D., Fleming, P.S., Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent. J Clin Epidemiol 69 (2016), 179–184.e5.
24. 24 Hrobjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Turner, L., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4, 2013, ED000058.
25. 25 Savović, J., Weeks, L., Sterne, J.A., et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 37.
26. 26 Hartling, L., Hamm, M.P., Milne, A., et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 66:9 (2012), 973–981.
27. 27 Armijo-Olivo, S., Ospina, M., da Costa, B.R., et al. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PloS One, 9(5), 2014, e96920.
28. 28 Armijo-Olivo, S., Stiles, C.R., Hagen, N.A., Biondo, P.D., Cummings, G.G., Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool—methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 18:1 (2012), 12–18.
29. 29 Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339, 2009, b4102.
30. 30 Hartling, L., Bond, K., Vandermeer, B., et al. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PloS One, 6(2), 2011, e17242.
31. 31 Boutron, I., Ravaud, P., Classification systems to improve assessment of risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 65:3 (2012), 236–238.
32. 32 Nuesch, E., Reichenbach, S., Trelle, S., et al. The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 61:12 (2009), 1633–1641.
33. 33 Savovic, J., Jones, H.E., Altman, D.G., et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157:6 (2012), 429–438.
34. 34 Armijo-Olivo, S., Cummings, G.G., Fuentes, J., et al. Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis. Phys Ther 94:9 (2014), 1272–1284.
35. 35 Herbison, P., Hay-Smith, J., Gillespie, W.J., Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 59:12 (2006), 1249–1256.
36. 36 Saltaji, H., Armijo-Olivo, S., Cummings, G.G., Amin, M., Flores-Mir, C., Methodological characteristics and treatment effect sizes in oral health randomised controlled trials: is there a relationship? Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study. BMJ Open, 4(2), 2014, e004527.
37. 37 Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:7650 (2008), 924–926.
38. 38 Moustafa, K., The disaster of the impact factor. Sci Eng Ethics 21:1 (2015), 139–142.
39. 39 2014 Journal Citation Reports © Science Edition. Thomson Reuters, 2015.
40. 40 Greenland, S., Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading: reply to “re: a critical look at some popular analytic methods.”. Am J Epidemiol 140:3 (1994), 300–301.
41. 41 Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., Egger, M., The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282:11 (1999), 1054–1060.
42. 42 Armijo-Olivo, S., da Costa, B.R., Cummings, G.G., et al. PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study. PloS One, 10(7), 2015, e0132634.