• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

纳入 Cochrane 口腔健康系统评价的研究质量评估:一项元研究。

Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research.

机构信息

Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran 1419693111, Iran.

Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1983969411, Iran.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 7;18(14):7284. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147284.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph18147284
PMID:34299733
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8306360/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of published randomised clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the published clinical trials within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews until 1 June 2020 were identified and examined. RoB was assessed for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study using Cochrane's RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each variable in the study sample.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 2565 included studies, the majority ( = 1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. Regarding blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Among the various domains of bias, the performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB, compared to 11.1% with a low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had a higher percentage of low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). Additionally, the double- and triple-blind studies had higher percentages of low ORoB (23.6% and 23.3%, respectively), while the studies with a crossover design had the highest percentage of low ORoB (28.8%).

CONCLUSION

The RoB of oral health studies published as Cochrane reviews was deemed high.

摘要

目的

评估 Cochrane 口腔健康系统评价中已发表的随机临床试验的偏倚风险(RoB)和其他特征。

材料与方法

截至 2020 年 6 月 1 日,检索并评估了所有发表在 Cochrane 口腔健康系统评价中的临床试验。根据 Cochrane 评价标准,对所有纳入的临床试验进行 RoB 评估。本研究使用 Cochrane 的 RoB 工具-v2 定义了总体 RoB(ORoB)。采用描述性分析确定研究样本中每个变量的频率。

结果

在总共 2565 项纳入研究中,大多数(n=1600)的样本量为 50 或更大。关于盲法,907 项研究被标记为双盲。在各种偏倚领域中,实施偏倚的高风险率最高(31.4%)。与低 ORoB(11.1%)相比,近一半的研究存在高 ORoB。使用安慰剂的研究中,低 ORoB 的比例较高(14.8%比 10.7%)。此外,双盲和三盲研究的低 ORoB 比例较高(分别为 23.6%和 23.3%),而交叉设计的研究中低 ORoB 的比例最高(28.8%)。

结论

发表在 Cochrane 评价中的口腔健康研究的 RoB 被认为较高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/689963a25566/ijerph-18-07284-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/1efcbf68aa16/ijerph-18-07284-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/72d82c2c39f5/ijerph-18-07284-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/387a61781ef6/ijerph-18-07284-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/689963a25566/ijerph-18-07284-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/1efcbf68aa16/ijerph-18-07284-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/72d82c2c39f5/ijerph-18-07284-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/387a61781ef6/ijerph-18-07284-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ba1c/8306360/689963a25566/ijerph-18-07284-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research.纳入 Cochrane 口腔健康系统评价的研究质量评估:一项元研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 7;18(14):7284. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147284.
2
Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.2020 年发表的非 Cochrane 系统评价中 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2 的使用频率和充分性:元研究。
Res Synth Methods. 2024 May;15(3):430-440. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1695. Epub 2024 Jan 23.
3
Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews.Cochrane 口腔健康评价更新中随时间变化的偏倚风险。
J Dent. 2019 Jan;80:63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.004. Epub 2018 Oct 17.
4
Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials.随机序列生成偏倚风险评估:100 项试验系统评价研究。
Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 8;8(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0924-1.
5
The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.Cochrane 系统评价干预措施中“其他偏倚”类别中偏倚的判断:系统调查。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8.
6
Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.Cochrane 偏倚风险工具在大多数非 Cochrane 系统评价中使用不当。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;123:114-119. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.019. Epub 2020 Apr 1.
7
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.Cochrane 综述中手术与非手术试验的偏倚风险评估充分性:一项方法学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01123-7.
8
Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.大多数 Cochrane 系统评价和方案并未遵循 Cochrane 的偏倚风险 2.0 工具。
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2023 Feb 20;69(3):469-472. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.20221593. eCollection 2023.
9
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.Cochrane 系统评价中随机序列生成的偏倚风险判断常常与 Cochrane 手册不一致。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y.
10
Is the evaluation of risk of bias in periodontology and implant dentistry comprehensive? A systematic review.牙周病学和种植牙学中偏倚风险评估是否全面?一项系统评价。
J Clin Periodontol. 2015 May;42(5):488-94. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12394. Epub 2015 Apr 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Interventions connecting young people living in Africa to healthcare; a systematic review using the RE-AIM framework.将非洲年轻人与医疗保健联系起来的干预措施;一项使用RE-AIM框架的系统评价
Front Health Serv. 2024 Jan 31;4:1140699. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1140699. eCollection 2024.
2
Research Question, Objectives, and Endpoints in Clinical and Oncological Research: A Comprehensive Review.临床与肿瘤学研究中的研究问题、目标及终点:一项全面综述
Cureus. 2022 Sep 25;14(9):e29575. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29575. eCollection 2022 Sep.
3
Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.

本文引用的文献

1
A road map for designing and reporting clinical trials in paediatric dentistry.儿科牙科临床试验的设计和报告路线图。
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Dec;31 Suppl 1:14-22. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12746. Epub 2021 Jan 10.
2
How do we decide? Knowledge? Experience? Research?我们如何做出决定?靠知识?经验?还是研究?
Evid Based Dent. 2020 Mar;21(1):4. doi: 10.1038/s41432-020-0087-5.
3
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.《随机对照试验偏倚风险评估工具2:修订版》
伊朗 Cochrane 综述纳入的随机试验偏倚风险。
Arch Iran Med. 2022 Jun 1;25(6):375-382. doi: 10.34172/aim.2022.61.
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
4
A Century of Change towards Prevention and Minimal Intervention in Cariology.一个世纪以来龋病预防和最小干预的转变。
J Dent Res. 2019 Jun;98(6):611-617. doi: 10.1177/0022034519837252.
5
Evidence-Based Dentistry: Two Decades and Beyond.循证牙科学:二十年及以后。
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019 Mar;19(1):7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2018.05.001. Epub 2018 May 25.
6
Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews.Cochrane 口腔健康评价更新中随时间变化的偏倚风险。
J Dent. 2019 Jan;80:63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.10.004. Epub 2018 Oct 17.
7
Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013.牙科领域的随机临床试验:1955年至2013年间的偏倚风险、随机误差风险、报告质量和方法学质量
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):e0190089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190089. eCollection 2017.
8
Selective versus non-selective removal for dental caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.龋齿的选择性与非选择性去除:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Acta Odontol Scand. 2018 Mar;76(2):135-140. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2017.1392602. Epub 2017 Oct 26.
9
From dental science to clinical practice: Knowledge translation and evidence-based dentistry principles.从牙科学到临床实践:知识转化与循证牙科原则
Saudi Dent J. 2017 Jul;29(3):83-92. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.02.002. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
10
Evidence-based dentistry: An overview.循证牙科:概述
Contemp Clin Dent. 2016 Jul-Sep;7(3):293-4. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.188539.