Viana João, Machado Vanessa, Proença Luís, Chambrone Leandro, Mendes José João, Botelho João
Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research, 2829-511, Almada, Portugal.
Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 28;14(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13643-025-02901-4.
This meta-research study aimed to compare the assessment of Cochrane's Risk of Bias (RoB) and RoB2 tools in dentistry trials. A sample 150 in vivo randomized clinical trials published between 2020 and 2022 was randomly selected from PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases (50 per year). For each study, the impact factor, journal quartile, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, date information availability, and study model were recorded. The results showed that 33.3% of the studies were categorized as low risk of bias by both RoB and RoB2. However, 29.6% of the studies classified as low risk by RoB were downgraded to some concerns in RoB2, and 37% were downgraded to high risk. In the some concerns category, 25.9% were upgraded to low risk, 37% remained constant, and 37% were downgraded to high risk in RoB2. Among the high risk studies, 14.6% were upgraded to low risk, 26% to some concerns, and 59.4% remained constant in RoB2. The level of agreement between RoB and RoB2 was found to be low for dental studies. These findings highlight the differences between the two tools and the potential impact on the synthesis of evidence and decision-making processes in dental research.
这项元研究旨在比较Cochrane偏倚风险（RoB）工具和RoB2工具在牙科试验中的评估情况。从PubMed/Medline、Scopus和EMBASE数据库中随机抽取了2020年至2022年间发表的150项体内随机临床试验样本（每年50项）。对于每项研究，记录其影响因子、期刊四分位数、对CONSORT指南的遵守情况、日期信息可获取性以及研究模型。结果显示，33.3%的研究在RoB和RoB2工具评估中均被归类为低偏倚风险。然而，在RoB工具评估中被归类为低风险的研究，有29.6%在RoB2工具评估中被降级为存在一些担忧，37%被降级为高风险。在存在一些担忧类别中，25.9%在RoB2工具评估中被升级为低风险，37%保持不变，37%被降级为高风险。在高风险研究中，14.6%在RoB2工具评估中被升级为低风险，26%被升级为存在一些担忧，59.4%保持不变。研究发现，RoB和RoB2工具在牙科研究中的一致性水平较低。这些发现凸显了这两种工具之间的差异以及对牙科研究证据综合和决策过程的潜在影响。
