Development and validation of a risk-of-bias tool for assessing in vitro studies conducted in dentistry: The QUIN
Abstract
Statement of problem Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have emerged as forerunners of evidence-based dentistry, but assessing the quality of the available research is essential so that it can be applied to clinical practice. While a wide variety of risk-of-bias tools are available, each specifically developed for different study designs, a comprehensive tool exclusively framed to assess the quality of in vitro dental studies is lacking. Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a tool to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of in vitro dental studies. Material and methods A Delphi panel was established to conceptualize and develop the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN Tool). The tool was evaluated by using content validity and reliability testing methods. Results The QUIN Tool includes 12 points along with scoring and grading options to allow clinicians to evaluate the quality of in vitro studies. This tool shows good content validity and reliability. Conclusions The QUIN Tool is user-friendly, efficient, and effective for evaluating the risk of bias of in vitro studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The quality of the in vitro studies was assessed according to a new risk of bias assessment tool for in vitro dental studies.
“The quality of the in vitro studies was assessed according to a new risk of bias assessment tool for in vitro dental studies [35].”
From Tooth Whitening with Hydroxyapatite: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 440
- Authors
- Sheth, V. H., Shah, N. P., Jain, R., Bhanushali, N., & Bhatnagar, V.
- Affiliations
- Terna Dental College and Hospital (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Sheth, Vidhi H.
- Venue
- The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1038-1042
- ISSN
- 0022-3913 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4283323065
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 178 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 39.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- risk of bias, quality assessment tools, tool development, content validity, reliability statistics, evidence-based dentistry, systematic reviews, meta-analysis
- MeSH terms
- Delphi Technique, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Dental Research, Evidence-Based Dentistry, In Vitro Techniques
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
