牙科领域随机对照试验的质量。
Quality of randomised controlled trials in dentistry.
机构信息
Department of Oral Sciences, Section of Orthodontics and Temporomandibular disorders, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
出版信息
Int Dent J. 2011 Feb;61(1):37-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2011.00007.x.
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the best study designs to test the efficacy of medical and dental intervention. Many reports, however, have shown that at the moment the quality of dental RCT reports is still poor, and further efforts to improve it are necessary. It has been suggested that trials that are not well designed provide biased estimates of the treatment effects and that a journal's impact factor is not related to the quality of RCTs published. For these reasons, before trusting RCT reports, a careful assessment of the study selected is needed. Randomisation, blinding, allocation concealment, drop outs analysis are essential quality components of RCTs. Many systems for RCTs quality assessment are available. In this report the concept of quality of RCTs will be critically evaluated and the most commonly used instruments available for quality assessment of RCTs in dental research will be reviewed.
摘要
随机对照试验（RCT）被认为是测试医学和牙科干预措施疗效的最佳研究设计。然而，许多报告表明，目前牙科 RCT 报告的质量仍然很差，需要进一步努力加以改进。有人认为，设计不佳的试验会对治疗效果产生有偏差的估计，而且期刊的影响因子与发表的 RCT 质量无关。出于这些原因，在信任 RCT 报告之前，需要对所选研究进行仔细评估。随机化、盲法、分配隐藏、脱落分析是 RCT 的重要质量组成部分。有许多 RCT 质量评估系统。本报告将对 RCT 的质量进行批判性评估，并回顾牙科研究中常用的 RCT 质量评估工具。
相似文献
1
Quality of randomised controlled trials in dentistry.牙科领域随机对照试验的质量。
Int Dent J. 2011 Feb;61(1):37-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2011.00007.x.
2
Evaluation of dental trials comparing baseline differences using p values.使用p值比较基线差异的牙科试验评估。
Acta Odontol Scand. 2019 Apr;77(3):181-183. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2018.1522448. Epub 2019 Jan 9.
3
Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals.儿科牙科期刊中随机临床试验报告质量的评估
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;19(5):318-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00974.x. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
4
The nature of evidence.证据的本质。
J Orthod. 2009 Sep;36(3):137-8. doi: 10.1179/14653120723112.
5
Quality of RCTs in periodontology--a systematic review.牙周病学中随机对照试验的质量——一项系统评价。
J Dent Res. 2002 Dec;81(12):866-70. doi: 10.1177/154405910208101214.
6
The Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials in General Dentistry Journals.普通牙科杂志中随机试验的偏倚风险
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2015;25(4):277-88. doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2015011621.
7
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.试验报告的统一标准（CONSORT）以及医学期刊上发表的随机对照试验（RCT）的报告完整性。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2.
8
Randomized controlled trial: the gold standard or an unobtainable fallacy?随机对照试验：金标准还是无法实现的谬误？
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Oct;37(5):457-61. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv046. Epub 2015 Jul 1.
9
Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of oral implants.口腔种植体随机对照试验的质量评估
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 Nov-Dec;16(6):783-92.
10
Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research.牙科和医学研究中随机临床试验的报告质量。
Br Dent J. 2002 Jan 26;192(2):100-3. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801304.
引用本文的文献
1
Comparative assessment of Cochrane's ROB and ROB2 in dentistry trials: a meta-research study.Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具（ROB）和ROB2在牙科试验中的比较评估：一项元研究
Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 28;14(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02901-4.
2
Survival of direct resin composites versus stainless-steel crowns as coronal restorations following pulpotomy in young permanent first molars: a retrospective cohort study using propensity score-matched analysis.年轻恒牙第一磨牙活髓切断术后直接树脂复合材料与不锈钢冠作为冠修复体的存留情况：一项使用倾向评分匹配分析的回顾性队列研究
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2025 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s40368-025-01074-x.
3
Bibliometric Analysis of Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment for Hair Restoration, Facial Rejuvenation, Dental Procedures, and Gynecological Rejuvenation.富血小板血浆用于毛发修复、面部年轻化、牙科手术及妇科年轻化治疗的文献计量分析
Skin Appendage Disord. 2025 Apr;11(2):166-175. doi: 10.1159/000541528. Epub 2024 Oct 22.
4
Developing intervention fidelity strategies for a behaviour change intervention delivered in primary care dental practices: the RETURN fidelity strategy.为在基层医疗牙科诊所实施的行为改变干预制定干预保真策略：RETURN保真策略。
BMC Prim Care. 2025 Feb 17;26(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02732-1.
5
Effects of dietary-based weight loss interventions on biomarkers of endothelial function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.饮食干预对血管内皮功能生物标志物的影响：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2023 Oct;77(10):927-940. doi: 10.1038/s41430-023-01307-6. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
6
Safety and efficacy of iota-carrageenan nasal spray in treatment and prevention of the common cold.ι-角叉菜胶鼻喷雾剂治疗和预防普通感冒的安全性和有效性。
Med Pharm Rep. 2021 Jan;94(1):28-34. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1817. Epub 2021 Jan 29.
7
Detecting the extent of control over selection bias relating to oral health and otorhinolaryngology: cross-sectional study.检测口腔健康和耳鼻咽喉科相关选择偏倚的控制程度：横断面研究。
Sao Paulo Med J. 2020 Jun;138(3):184-189. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2019.0458.R1.04022020. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
8
Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review.烧伤护理中随机对照试验的偏倚风险和报告完整性评估：系统评价方案。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 18;9(12):e033472. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033472.
9
Critical appraisal of reporting randomized clinical trials published in Iranian dental journals during 2003-2010.2003 - 2010年期间伊朗牙科期刊发表的随机临床试验报告的批判性评价
J Dent (Tehran). 2014 May;11(3):310-8. Epub 2014 May 31.
10
A systematic review of outcome measurements and quality of studies evaluating fixed tooth-supported restorations.固定牙支持修复体的评估研究的结果测量和质量的系统评价。
J Prosthodont. 2014 Aug;23(6):421-33. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12160. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
本文引用的文献
1
Assessing quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals.评估护理期刊中随机临床试验报告的质量。
Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;19(2):25-39.
2
Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries with special reference to surgical technique and rehabilitation: an assessment of randomized controlled trials.前交叉韧带损伤的治疗，特别提及手术技术与康复：随机对照试验的评估
Arthroscopy. 2009 Jun;25(6):653-85. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.04.066.
3
Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals.儿科牙科期刊中随机临床试验报告质量的评估
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;19(5):318-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.00974.x. Epub 2009 Mar 23.
4
Chinese authors do need CONSORT: reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals.中国作者确实需要CONSORT：对五家中国顶级医学期刊的报告质量评估
Contemp Clin Trials. 2008 Sep;29(5):727-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.05.003. Epub 2008 May 18.
5
Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.评估随机对照试验质量的量表：一项系统评价。
Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):156-75. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070147. Epub 2007 Dec 11.
6
Is any one analgesic superior for episodic tension-type headache?对于发作性紧张型头痛，是否有一种镇痛药更具优势？
J Fam Pract. 2006 Dec;55(12):1064-72.
7
Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors.在随机临床试验中谁被设盲了？对200项试验的研究及对作者的调查。
Clin Trials. 2006;3(4):360-5. doi: 10.1177/1740774506069153.
8
Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting.整形手术中的随机临床试验：产出与报告质量调查
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(8):787-96. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2005.11.027. Epub 2006 Feb 21.
9
Assessment of bias in methodology for randomized controlled trials published on implant dentistry.种植牙学领域发表的随机对照试验方法学中的偏倚评估
J Prosthodont. 2006 Jul-Aug;15(4):257-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00115.x.
10
An evidence-based review on the validity of the Kaltenborn rule as applied to the glenohumeral joint.
Man Ther. 2007 Feb;12(1):3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2006.02.011. Epub 2006 Jun 13.
Zotero 插件