Faggion Clovis Mariano, Chambrone Leandro, Tu Yu-Kang
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Dec;41(12):1184-92. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12318. Epub 2014 Nov 7.
To evaluate the quality of reporting of logistic regression models used to assess risk factors for tooth loss in patients who have received periodontal treatment.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Citation Index, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS electronic databases were searched up to 01 March 2014 to identify interventional longitudinal studies assessing risk factors for tooth loss after periodontal treatment. The reference lists of included studies were searched manually. No language restriction was applied to the search. Quality of reporting of logistic regression models was assessed using analytical and documentation criteria with a 15-item checklist. Criteria were judged as met (adequately reported) or not met (not reported). All searches, selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently and in duplicate.
Of 621 records initially retrieved, 24 articles were included in the analysis. Less than 30% of all 360 datapoints were met. "Coding of independent variables" was reported most frequently [n = 22 (83%) articles]. Criteria such as "internal and external validation of the model" were not met in any study assessed.
The reporting of logistic regression models in studies assessing risk factors for tooth loss in patients who have received periodontal treatment is not optimal.
评估用于评估接受牙周治疗患者牙齿缺失风险因素的逻辑回归模型的报告质量。
材料/方法：检索截至2014年3月1日的PubMed、EMBASE、BIOSIS Citation Index、CINAHL、Web of Science和LILACS电子数据库，以识别评估牙周治疗后牙齿缺失风险因素的干预性纵向研究。对纳入研究的参考文献列表进行手动检索。检索不设语言限制。使用包含15个条目的清单，根据分析和文献标准评估逻辑回归模型的报告质量。判断标准为是否符合（报告充分）或不符合（未报告）。所有检索、筛选、数据提取和质量评估均独立进行且重复进行。
最初检索到621条记录，其中24篇文章纳入分析。所有360个数据点中，不到30%符合标准。“自变量编码”的报告最为频繁[n = 22（83%）篇文章]。在评估的任何研究中，“模型的内部和外部验证”等标准均未得到满足。
在评估接受牙周治疗患者牙齿缺失风险因素的研究中，逻辑回归模型的报告并不理想。
