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

[img] Text
Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials.a meta-epidemiological review.pdf
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License BORIS Standard License.

Download (620kB) | Request a copy

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Orthodontics

UniBE Contributor:

Pandis, Nikolaos

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0141-5387

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Language:

English

Submitter:

Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

03 May 2017 11:17

Last Modified:

03 May 2017 11:17

Publisher DOI:

10.1093/ejo/cjv049

PubMed ID:

26174770

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.94468

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/94468

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback