Cited by 43Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDental materials and restorations

Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955-2013

Open access
Saltaji, Humam, Armijo-Olivo, Susan, Cummings, Greta G., Amin, Maryam, Flores-Mir, Carlos·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions and the development of these aspects over time. METHODS: We included 540 randomized clinical trials from 64 selected systematic reviews. We extracted, in duplicate, details from each of the selected randomized clinical trials with respect to publication and trial characteristics, reporting and methodologic characteristics, and Cochrane risk of bias domains. We analyzed data using logistic regression and Chi-square statistics. RESULTS: Sequence generation was assessed to be inadequate (at unclear or high risk of bias) in 68% (n = 367) of the trials, while allocation concealment was inadequate in the majority of trials (n = 464; 85.9%). Blinding of participants and blinding of the outcome assessment were judged to be inadequate in 28.5% (n = 154) and 40.5% (n = 219) of the trials, respectively. A sample size calculation before the initiation of the study was not performed/reported in 79.1% (n = 427) of the trials, while the sample size was assessed as adequate in only 17.6% (n = 95) of the trials. Two thirds of the trials were not described as double blinded (n = 358; 66.3%), while the method of blinding was appropriate in 53% (n = 286) of the trials. We identified a significant decrease over time (1955-2013) in the proportion of trials assessed as having inadequately addressed methodological quality items (P < 0.05) in 30 out of the 40 quality criteria, or as being inadequate (at high or unclear risk of bias) in five domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, other sources of bias, and overall risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions have improved over time; however, further efforts that contribute to the development of more stringent methodology and detailed reporting of trials are still needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0190089

Cites

76 of 77 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many research projects in the USA are funded by private initiatives, unlike most other countries.

    “Also, many research projects in the USA are funded by private initiatives, unlike most other countries 29 , 30 , 31 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results (Trial publication and characteristics; page unavailable) report that 171 of 540 dental trials received industry funding, supporting the narrower point that some research has private funding. Funding is not broken down by country, so the paper does not establish that many US projects are privately funded or that the USA differs from most other countries. The Discussion instead speculates that government and public-sector interest may facilitate trials in the USA and UK. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saltaji, H., Armijo-Olivo, S., Cummings, G. G., Amin, M., & Flores-Mir, C.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Saltaji, Humam
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-12-22
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
e0190089
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2781460076
Cited by
43
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions (AIHS)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, oral health interventions, risk of bias, reporting quality, methodological quality, sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, sample size determination, Cochrane risk of bias tool
MeSH terms
Dentistry, Humans, Research Design, Observer Variation, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

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