TY - JOUR
T1 - A Risk of Bias Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on Periodontal Regeneration Published in 2013
AU - Elangovan, Satheesh
AU - Prakasam, Sivaraman
AU - Gajendrareddy, Praveen
AU - Allareddy, Veerasathpurush
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - Objective: The objective of this assessment is to evaluate the degree of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in 2013 and focusing on periodontal regeneration. Methods: Three reviewers searched and selected the trials based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Predictor variables [number of authors, primary objective of the study, biomaterial employed, follow-up time periods, split mouth study (yes/no), journal, year of publication, country, scale (single/multi-center) and nature of funding] were extracted and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by the three reviewers. Results: Seventeen RCTs were included in this assessment. The risk of bias in RCTs published in 2013 with a focus in periodontal regeneration varied significantly with only in less than 30% of the included trials, the overall risk of bias was found to be low, while 41% of trials were designated to have a higher degree of bias. Specifically, when looking at the domains assessed, 70% of the included trials reported an accepted method of sequence generation, blinding (whenever possible), completeness of outcome data or avoided selective outcome reporting. Meanwhile, only 47% of the included trials reported some form of allocation concealment. Conclusion: In this assessment, of the included 17 trials, slightly more than 40% of them had a high risk of bias, underscoring the importance of careful appraisal of trials before implementing the study interventions in clinical practice and the need for more detailed analyses.
AB - Objective: The objective of this assessment is to evaluate the degree of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in 2013 and focusing on periodontal regeneration. Methods: Three reviewers searched and selected the trials based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Predictor variables [number of authors, primary objective of the study, biomaterial employed, follow-up time periods, split mouth study (yes/no), journal, year of publication, country, scale (single/multi-center) and nature of funding] were extracted and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by the three reviewers. Results: Seventeen RCTs were included in this assessment. The risk of bias in RCTs published in 2013 with a focus in periodontal regeneration varied significantly with only in less than 30% of the included trials, the overall risk of bias was found to be low, while 41% of trials were designated to have a higher degree of bias. Specifically, when looking at the domains assessed, 70% of the included trials reported an accepted method of sequence generation, blinding (whenever possible), completeness of outcome data or avoided selective outcome reporting. Meanwhile, only 47% of the included trials reported some form of allocation concealment. Conclusion: In this assessment, of the included 17 trials, slightly more than 40% of them had a high risk of bias, underscoring the importance of careful appraisal of trials before implementing the study interventions in clinical practice and the need for more detailed analyses.
KW - Bias
KW - Evidence based dentistry
KW - Randomized controlled trial
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84966524882&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84966524882&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jebdp.2015.03.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jebdp.2015.03.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 27132553
AN - SCOPUS:84966524882
SN - 1532-3382
VL - 16
SP - 30
EP - 40
JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
IS - 1
ER -