Has the quality of reporting in periodontology changed in 14 years? A systematic review

Natalie M. Leow · Aviva Petrie · Nikolaos Donos · Ian G. Needleman

12 citations0/0 files storedJournal Of Clinical Periodontology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology has been poor. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines and an extension for non-pharmacologic trials (CONSORT-NPE), were introduced to aid in improving this. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in periodontology, changes over the last 14 years, and adherence to CONSORT-NPE. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials in humans, published in three periodontal journals, from 2013 to 2015 were included. Search was conducted through Medline, Embase and hand searching. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three full-text articles included. Two reviewers screened for reporting quality (κ = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.76). 84% of studies (n = 145) described randomization methods, 74% (n = 128) highlighted examiner blinding and 87% (n = 151) accounted for patients at study conclusion. Patient and caregiver blinding was addressed in 50% (n = 70) and 50% (n = 27) of studies respectively. 64% (n = 110) described adequate allocation concealment. Compared with Montenegro et al. (2002, Journal of Dental Research, 81, 866), improvements seen in describing randomization (2002, 16.5%; 2016, 84%), allocation concealment (2002, 6.5%; 2016, 64%), caregiver masking (2002, 17%; 2016, 50%). CONSORT-NPE; 62% (n = 107) had detailed explanations of all treatments, 88% (n = 152) lacked protocols for adherence of caregivers' to an intervention. Only 17% (n = 29) described caregivers' expertise and case volume. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial improvements have occurred. Attention is required for statistical analysis of patient losses and masking. CONSORT-NPE aspects were poorly reported.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 2010Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cited by

2021Study design and primary outcome in randomized controlled trials in periodontology. A systematic review 2020Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease from the abstracts published in dental Science Citation Indexed journals in the last ten years

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.