Cited by 36Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDental materials and restorationsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Compliance of Randomized Clinical Trials in Noncarious Cervical Lesions With the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review of Methodology

Reis, A, de Geus, JL, Wambier, L, Schroeder, M, Loguercio, AD·2018·Operative Dentistry

Abstract

SUMMARY: The literature was reviewed to evaluate the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT ) and the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). RCTs were searched at Cochrane Library, PubMed, and other electronic databases to find studies about adhesive systems for cervical lesions. The compliance of the articles with CONSORT was evaluated using the following scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country, and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were left for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received scores of 0 or 1. Flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size were more critical items, with 80% receiving a score of 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among countries was observed (p<0.001), as well as range of year (p<0.001). Only 4.3% of the studies were judged as at low risk; 36.2% were classified as having unclear risk and 59.4% as having high risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating adhesive systems to the CONSORT is low with unclear/high risk of bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2341/17-060-l

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 182 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reis, A., de Geus, J., Wambier, L., Schroeder, M., & Loguercio, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (BR)
  • Juliana L de Geus, MS, PhD, professor, School of Dentistry, School Paulo Picanço, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil and Department of Restorative Dentistry, Guairacá Faculty, Guarapuava, Paraná, Brazil.
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Alessandro D. Loguercio, DDS, MS, PhD, professor, Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Parana, Brazil
Corresponding author
Reis, A
Venue
Operative Dentistry
Published
2018-05-01
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
E129-E151
ISSN
  • 0361-7734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-2863
OpenAlex
W2802609962
Cited by
35
References
182
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Operative Dentistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • U.S. Public Health Service
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
CONSORT statement, reporting quality, risk of bias, non-carious cervical lesions, adhesive restorative systems, randomized controlled trials, allocation concealment, flowcharts, sample size, Cochrane risk of bias tool
MeSH terms
Dental Bonding, Dental Cements, Humans, Tooth Diseases, Observer Variation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Tooth Cervix, 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