Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review.

Koletsi, Despina; Spineli, Loukia M; Lempesi, Evangelia; Pandis, Nikolaos (2016). Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review. European journal of orthodontics, 38(3), pp. 308-312. Oxford University Press 10.1093/ejo/cjv049

Preview

Text Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials.a meta-epidemiological review.pdf - Published Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (620kB) | Preview

AIM

To assess the risk of bias (RoB) in a subset of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals using the Cochrane RoB tool and to identify associations between domain RoB assessment and treatment effect estimates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty consecutive issues of four major orthodontic journals were electronically searched to identify RCTs. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, which involves seven domains rated as 'low', 'unclear' or 'high': random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting, and other threats to internal validity. Estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were recorded or calculated where possible for binary and continuous outcome measures. Meta-regression models were employed to assess the impact of RoB per domain on the magnitude of treatment effect.

RESULTS

One hundred and one eligible studies involving 128 pair-wise comparisons were retrieved. Blinding of outcome assessors and incomplete outcome data were frequently judged as 'high' for RoB both for studies with binary and continuous outcome (42.9 and 48.8 per cent, respectively). For binary outcomes, high RoB regarding random sequence generation [odds ratio (OR): 5.97, 95% CI: 2.03, 17.63, P-value: 0.002] and incomplete outcome data (OR: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.03, 16.15, P-value: 0.05) were more likely to provide exaggerated effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improved clinical trial methodology and reporting, in order to avoid inflated associations and erroneous conclusions.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

126 since deposited on 03 May 2017
14 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item