使用RoB-2.0工具对2009年至2021年发表在《颌面与口腔外科杂志》（MAOS）上的随机对照试验进行质量评估。
Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From 2009-2021 Using RoB-2.0 Tool.
作者信息
Kaur Amanjot, Bali Rishi Kumar, Patnana Arun K, Gigi P G, Pandey Akhilesh, Aparna Ganesan, Chaudhry Kirti
机构信息
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan India.
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, DAV Dental College and MDM General Hospital, Yamunanagar, Haryana India.
出版信息
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2025 Feb;24(1):1-7. doi: 10.1007/s12663-022-01795-2. Epub 2022 Nov 15.
AIM
Analyzing quality of Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) since inception using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0.
METHODOLOGY
Three authors independently screened and evaluated the RCTs according to Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria. All six domains of the RoB 2.0 tool were analyzed. The assessment of each judgment can be "Low" or "High" risk of bias, or can express "Some concerns."
RESULTS
"Some concerns" were found in the randomization process (57%), and "low ROB" was evaluated in the second domain (57%), third domain (96%) and fourth domain (53%).In fifth domain, maximum of the articles had shown either some concerns in ROB (49%) or low ROB (45%).Analysis of the overall ROB in the included articles, maximum of the articles (50%) of the articles had shown high ROB followed by articles with some concerns in the ROB assessment (36%) and only 14% of the included article shad shown the low ROB in the RCT methodology.
CONCLUSION
The methodological and reporting quality in MAOS journal has a significant room for improvement.
目的
使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具2.0版分析《颌面与口腔外科杂志》（MAOS）自创刊以来发表的随机对照试验（RCT）的质量。
方法
三位作者根据Cochrane偏倚风险工具2.0版，依据排除和纳入标准独立筛选和评估RCT。对RoB 2.0工具的所有六个领域进行了分析。每项判断的评估结果可以是“低”或“高”偏倚风险，也可以表示“有些担忧”。
结果
在随机化过程中发现“有些担忧”（57%），在第二个领域（57%）、第三个领域（96%）和第四个领域（53%）评估为“低偏倚风险”。在第五个领域，大多数文章在偏倚风险方面显示出“有些担忧”（49%）或“低偏倚风险”（45%）。对纳入文章的总体偏倚风险进行分析，大多数文章（50%）显示出“高偏倚风险”，其次是在偏倚风险评估中“有些担忧”的文章（36%），只有14%的纳入文章在RCT方法中显示出“低偏倚风险”。
结论
MAOS杂志的方法学和报告质量有很大的改进空间。
Zotero 插件