Cited by 12Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDental materials and restorationsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

Rezende, Márcia, Martins, Ana Cristina Rodrigues, da Silva, Jadson Araújo, Reis, Alessandra, de Geus, Juliana Larocca·2022·Clinical Oral Investigations

Abstract

Objectives This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.Methods A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.Results A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).Conclusions The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.Clinical relevance Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00784-021-04198-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In dentistry, many authors agree that reporting of RCTs is still suboptimal.

    “In dentistry, many authors agree that reporting of RCTs is still suboptimal 15 , 17 , 18 , 30 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 207 · Cited by 12

Authors
Rezende, M., Martins, A. C. R., da Silva, J. A., Reis, A., & de Geus, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Paulo Picanço School of Dentistry (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (BR)
Venue
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published
2021-09-30
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
41-64
ISSN
  • 1432-6981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1436-3771
OpenAlex
W3202469425
Cited by
12
References
207
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Oral Investigations (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
CONSORT statement, reporting quality, risk of bias, posterior restorations, randomized controlled trials, dental restorative treatment, trial methodology reporting, journal impact factor
MeSH terms
Bibliometrics, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review