A Risk of Bias Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on Periodontal Regeneration Published in 2013

The impact of bias of underlying literature in guidelines on its recommendations: assessment of the German fluoride guideline

PURPOSE

The significance of the underlying literature in clinical guidelines can be weakened by the risk of bias, which could negatively affect the recommendations. Especially in controversial matters, such as fluoride use for caries prevention in children, biased results may be not reliable and lead to incorrect conclusions. This study was performed to detect bias in underlying literature of the German guideline for caries prevention using fluoride in children, where no consensus was reached between paediatricians and paediatric dentists.

METHODS

Three tools used for risk of bias assessments of different study designs were RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, and ROBIS for systematic reviews. For each study cited in the guideline two independent risk of bias assessments were performed. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Out of 58 papers, 48.3% (n = 28) showed high risk of bias, with the majority in sections regarding fluoride tablets, fluoridated toothpaste, and paediatricians' recommendations. 9 out of 20 recommendations and statements were based on studies with high risk of bias, all of which were in these three controversial sections. 13 out of 29 RCTs showed high risk of bias (44.8%), as all 13 non-randomized trials did, while only 2 of 16 (12.5%) systematic reviews had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Considering risk of bias of cited studies in clinical guidelines may result in substantial changes in its recommendations and aid in reaching consensus. Efforts should be made to assess risk of bias of underlying literature in future clinical guidelines.

Degree of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials: Does It Have an Impact on Root Coverage Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

Improvement over time in mean (MRC) and complete root coverage (CRC) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been documented. Our objective was to assess the effect that the ROB has on relevant outcomes reported in RCTs evaluating the efficacy of a commonly performed root coverage procedure.

METHODS

RCTs that involved the use of a bilaminar technique of coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft were selected. The following data were extracted: MRC, CRC, whether conflict of interest was addressed (yes/no), adequacy of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment. Trials were categorized into four groups as per different time periods: before Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (before 1996), CONSORT (1997 to 2001), CONSORT 2001 (2002 to 2010), and CONSORT 2010 (2011 to 2019). Differences between group means were assessed using statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The search yielded a total of 47 RCTs published between 1993 and 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. A trend toward lower ROB over time in the selected RCTs was observed. However, differences in MRC and CRC with respect to the degree ROB of included trials were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Degree of ROB did not influence MRC and CRC reported in the RCTs included in this investigation. This finding suggests that the observed improvement of clinical outcomes over time should be attributed to other factors, such as refinement of surgical techniques.

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Research waste is highly prevalent across biomedical investigations. We aimed to assess the evidence on the extent of research waste in dental research. We performed a scoping review of empirical evaluations of dental studies assessing the prevalence and impact of limitations in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research. PubMed was searched using specific terms to retrieve studies dealing with design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies in dentistry, with no year or language restrictions. Of the 1,807 publications identified from the search and from manual searches, 71 were included in this review. The topic and article selection was based on the expert opinion of the authors. The existing evidence suggests that, although there are improvements over time, substantial deficiencies in all areas (design, conduct, analysis, reporting) were prevalent in dental research publications. Waste in research is a multifaceted problem without a simple solution. However, an appreciation of optimal research design and execution is a prerequisite and should be underpinned by policies that include appropriate training in research methods and properly aligned incentives.

[Quality deficits of drug trials for older patients: An analysis of a series of systematic reviews]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to present an exemplary methodological review of the quality of included studies on drug therapy in older patients, using a published series of six systematic reviews (SRs). These six SRs included 48 systematic reviews, 65 intervention studies and 33 observational studies. The series of SRs has been carried out in the PRIMA-eDS-project (www.prima-eds.eu) to develop recommendations for the treatment of elderly patients with polypharmacy.

METHODS

The research question was to which extent recommendations on drug therapy in older patients are based on sound evidence. To this purpose, we performed a quality assessment of all studies included using AMSTAR for systematic reviews, CASP for observational studies, and the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool for intervention studies.

RESULTS

The evidence base for commonly prescribed drugs in the elderly is weak. The studies identified by the systematic reviews revealed a significant lack of studies addressing the target population as well as a lack of high-quality evidence. Among the 33 observational studies, it was unclear in nearly half of the publications whether the follow-up was sufficiently long and complete. For one-third, the conclusions did not match the observed evidence. The greatest risk of bias in the intervention trials was due to selection and incorrect blinding. Quality deficits of the systematic reviews consisted in the provision of a complete study list and the lack of consideration of potential publication bias.

DISCUSSION

Overall, many methodological deficits were revealed, making it difficult or almost impossible to derive reliable recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Our work illustrates the immense need for research in the treatment of older patients as well as the importance of ensuring the highest quality standards when conducting intervention and observational studies or carrying out systematic reviews.

Evaluating benefits and harm of therapies

OBJECTIVE

This third article in a series of 4 aims to inform dental practitioners on the importance of weighing benefits and harm when making clinical treatment decisions.

METHODS

This article describes some examples of important consequences to patients' health when potential side effects of interventions are not taken into consideration in the decision-making process. Some information to help dental practitioners search for data on negative effects of therapies is also presented, and the need to weigh benefits and harm of therapies is discussed.

RESULTS

Therapeutic interventions in dentistry may cause several side effects, such as nerve damage caused by dental implant placement. Adequate evaluation of potential side effects before performing a procedure and comprehensive communication with the patient about these side effects are sine qua non conditions for any clinical decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The information provided in this article may encourage dental practitioners to obtain more information regarding negative aspects of clinical interventions, to more comprehensively inform patients and to improve clinical decision-making.