Butani Yogita, Hartz Arthur, Levy Steven, Watkins Catherine, Kanellis Michael, Nowak Arthur
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Pediatr Dent. 2006 Jan-Feb;28(1):66-71.
The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate reporting of observational studies in the pediatric dental literature.
This assessment included the following steps: (1) developing a model for reporting information in clinical dentistry studies; (2) identifying treatment comparisons in pediatric dentistry that were evaluated by at least 5 observational studies; (3) abstracting from these studies any data indicated by applying the reporting model; and (4) comparing available data elements to the desired data elements in the reporting model.
The reporting model included data elements related to: (1) patients; (2) providers; (3) treatment details; and (4) study design. Two treatment comparisons in pediatric dentistry were identified with 5 or more observational studies: (1) stainless steel crowns vs amalgams (10 studies); and (2) composite restorations vs amalgam (5 studies). Results from studies comparing the same treatments varied substantially. Data elements from the reporting model that could have explained some of the variation were often reported inadequately or not at all.
Reporting of observational studies in the pediatric dental literature may be inadequate for an informed interpretation of the results. Models similar to that used in this study could be used for developing standards for the conduct and reporting of observational studies in pediatric dentistry.
本评估旨在评价儿科牙科文献中观察性研究的报告情况。
本评估包括以下步骤：（1）建立临床牙科研究信息报告模型；（2）确定在儿科牙科中至少有5项观察性研究评估的治疗对比；（3）从这些研究中提取应用报告模型所指示的任何数据；（4）将可用数据元素与报告模型中所需的数据元素进行比较。
报告模型包括与以下方面相关的数据元素：（1）患者；（2）提供者；（3）治疗细节；（4）研究设计。在儿科牙科中确定了两项有5项或更多观察性研究的治疗对比：（1）不锈钢冠与汞合金（10项研究）；（2）复合修复体与汞合金（5项研究）。比较相同治疗方法的研究结果差异很大。报告模型中本可解释部分差异的数据元素往往报告不充分或根本未报告。
儿科牙科文献中观察性研究的报告可能不足以对结果进行明智的解读。类似于本研究中使用的模型可用于制定儿科牙科观察性研究的开展和报告标准。
