Cited by 34Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDental Erosion and TreatmentStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials of dental bleaching – Compliance with the CONSORT Statement: a systematic review

Open access
LOGUERCIO, Alessandro Dourado, MARAN, Bianca Medeiros, HANZEN, Taíse Alessandra, PAULA, Alexandra Mara de, PERDIGÃO, Jorge, REIS, Alessandra·2017·Brazilian Oral Research

Abstract

We reviewed the literature to evaluate: a) The compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on bleaching with the CONSORT; and b) the risk of bias of these studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and other electronic databases, to find RCTs focused on bleaching (or whitening). The articles were evaluated in compliance with CONSORT in a scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. 185 RCTs were included for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received score 0 or 1. Protocol, flow chart, allocation concealment and sample size were more critical items, as 80% of the studies scored 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 16.7 ± 5.4 points, which represents 52.2% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among journal, country and period of time was observed (p < 0.02). Only 7.6% of the studies were judged at "low" risk; 62.1% were classified as "unclear"; and 30.3% as "high" risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating bleaching materials and techniques to the CONSORT is still low with unclear/high risk of bias.

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 · 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0060

Cites

234 of 234 references verified0 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?

  • The evaluation of compliance with the CONSORT statement was performed using a previously validated tool.

    “The evaluation of compliance with the CONSORT statement was performed using a previously validated tool that has been applied in other studies (Loguercio et al. 2017; Reis et al. 2018).”

    From Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes (2025) · cites this paper as Loguercio et al. 2017

    In ‘Adherence to CONSORT statement’ (page unavailable), the paper says it developed and used a CONSORT evaluation tool. It reports pilot-testing the tool and checking its accuracy and reproducibility before evaluation, but does not describe it as a previously validated tool. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some published studies have shown lower adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.

    “Some published studies have, however, shown lower adherence to the CONSORT guidelines (Loguercio et al. 2017; Menne et al. 2022; Knippschild et al. 2021; Rezende et al. 2022; Flint and Harrison 2010).”
  • Variations in adherence may be due to methodological choices made by authors when analyzing CONSORT adherence, such as criteria for selecting RCTs, method of conformity assessment, or publication period.

    “These variations may be due to methodological choices made by authors when analyzing CONSORT adherence, such as the criteria used for selecting RCTs, the method of conformity assessment, or the publication period (Loguercio et al. 2017).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gomes RS, Souza FBd, Lacerda CM, Brambilla CFF, Pascotto RC. Avaliação clínica da eficiência do uso do sistema LED-laser, LED e luz halógena na ativação do agente clareador em dentes vitalizados. Rev Dental Press Estét. 2008;5(2):62-77.
  2. Reis A, Wambier L, Schroeder M. Compliance of randomized clinical trials in non-carious cervical lesions with the CONSORT Statement: a methodology systematic review. Oper Dent. 2017.
  3. SCImago. SJR: SCImago journal & country rank. 2015[acess 2017 Feb 10]. Available from: http://www.scimagojr.com

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LOGUERCIO, A. D., MARAN, B. M., HANZEN, T. A., PAULA, A. M. D., PERDIGÃO, J., & REIS, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brazil
  • Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (BR)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Brazilian Oral Research
Published
2017-08-28
Volume
31
Issue
suppl 1
Pages
e60-e60
ISSN
  • 1517-7491 (ISSN-L)
  • 1806-8324
OpenAlex
W2749572431
Cited by
34
References
234
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Brazilian Oral Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (304104/2013-9, 305,588/2014-1, 2013-9, 2014-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental Erosion and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
tooth bleaching, CONSORT statement, reporting quality, risk of bias, allocation concealment, protocol registration, flowcharts, sample size, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Dental Bonding, Humans, Research Design, Risk Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Publication Bias, Risk Assessment, Guideline Adherence

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