Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials

Max C. Menne · Georgios Seitidis · Clóvis Mariano Faggion · Dimitris Mavridis · Nikolaos Pandis

7 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Dental Research

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 Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

Differences in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of meta-analysis might indicate potential novelty bias. The objective of this study was to assess the presence of novelty bias in a sample of studies published in periodontology and implant dentistry. On August 7, 2020, we searched the PubMed database for meta-analyses of clinical studies published between August 2015 and August 2020. Meta-analyses with at least 4 primary studies were selected for assessment. We fitted logistic regression models using trial characteristics as predictors to assess the association between these characteristics and 1) the odds of the first trial's estimate to be included in the meta-analysis confidence interval (CI) and 2) the odds of overlap between the first trial's CI and the meta-analysis prediction interval (PI). Ninety-two meta-analyses provided data for assessment. In absolute values, 70% of the meta-analyses have a pooled estimate smaller than the corresponding estimate of the first trial, although there was overlap of the CI of estimates from the first trial and the meta-analysis in 87% of the cases. This is probably due to the small number of trials in most meta-analyses and the subsequently large uncertainty associated with the pooled effect estimate. As the number of trials in the meta-analysis increased, the odds of the treatment effect estimate of the first trial to be included in the meta-analysis CI decreased by 15% for every additional trial (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96). Meta-analytic effect estimates appear to be more conservative than those from the first trial in the meta-analysis. Our findings show evidence of novelty bias in periodontology and implant dentistry; therefore, clinicians should be aware of the risk of making decisions based on the information reported in new trials because of the risk of exaggerated estimates in these trials.

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 — 7 citations exist upstream.

References

2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2015Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 2011False-Positive Psychology 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 2011Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses 2008Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research

Cited by

2022An introduction to cumulative meta-analysis

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.