Cited by 2Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Compliance of RCTs in endodontic instrumentation with the CONSORT Statement: A systematic review

Open access
Cabral, Karla Aguiar, Martins, Ana Cristina Rodrigues, Wambier, Letícia Maíra, Vivacqua-Gomes, Nilton, Rezende, Márcia, Reis, Alessandra, Geus, Juliana Larocca de·2021·Research, Society and Development

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT Statement in clinical studies comparing different instrumentation techniques in Endodontics. Methodology: A systematic search was carried out through Medline databases. There was no restriction on publication year or idiom. Solely randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The articles were evaluated in compliance with CONSORT. Descriptive analyses of the number of studies by journal, country, and quality assessments were performed with RoB 2.0 Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. A total of 6779 studies were identified, and only 33 meet the eligibility criteria. In relation to the overall risk of bias, eight out of 33 were classified as at ‘low’ risk of bias. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies in this review was 22 ± 6.2 points. Significant differences among countries were observed (p = 0.03). The range of years had a significant influence on the average CONSORT score (p = 0.01). The adherence of RCTs of endodontic instrumentation to the CONSORT Statement requires improvements. Adherence to the CONSORT statement will also reduce the high or some concerns risk of bias of studies in the field. CRD42020160552

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 · 10.33448/rsd-v10i8.17350

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Reports in other dental specialties have produced similar results to the present study.

    “Additionally, reports in other dental specialties, such as restorative dentistry, (Elagami et al. 2024) endodontics, (Cabral et al. 2021) surgery, (Shete-Motgi et al. 2022; Kshirsagar et al. 2021) prosthetics, (Chen et al. 2018; Lempesi et al. 2014) and pediatric dentistry, (Wambier et al. 2022) have produced similar results.”

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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Gathani, K., & Raghavendra, S. S. (2016) Comparison of postoperative pain in single-visit and multiple-visit endodontic therapy using ProTaper Universal, Hero Shaper and the Self-adjusting File -A split-mouth clinical trial. Endo-Endodontic Practice Today 10(1), 23-28.
  2. Jain, N., Pawar, A. M., Naganath, M., Gupta, A., & Daryani, H. (2016) Incidence and severity of postoperative pain after canal instrumentation with reciprocating system, continuous rotary single file system, versus SAF system. Endo-Endodontic Practice Today 10(3), 153-160.
  3. Ritt, A. S., Buco, J., Wagner, M. H., Rosa, R. A., Vier-Pelisser, F. V., & Só, M. V. R. (2012) Avaliação da eficácia da instrumentação manual x automatizada durante o retratamento endodôntico em canais radiculares obturados com guta-percha e cimento à base de hidróxido de cálcio. Revista da Faculdade de Odontologia UPF 17(1), 55-59.
  4. Schriger, D. L., & Altman, D. G. (2006) The content of medical journals instruction for authors. Annals of Internal Medicine 48(6), 743-749.
  5. Wan, N., Wang, X. Y., Qi, L., Yan, L., Ma, J., Yin, Y., Gao, W., & Wu, P. (2017) Clinical evaluation of nickel-titanium mechanical instruments in three different movement patterns combined with warm vertical compaction in the single-visit endodontic treatment. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research 21, 893-898.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cabral, K. A., Martins, A. C. R., Wambier, L. M., Vivacqua-Gomes, N., Rezende, M., Reis, A., & Geus, J. L. D.
Affiliations
  • Paulo Picanço School of Dentistry (BR)
  • Universidade Positivo (BR)
  • Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (BR)
Venue
Research, Society and Development
Published
2021-07-15
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
e41910817350
ISSN
2525-3409 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185821999
Cited by
2
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Research Society and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
root canal instrumentation, endodontic treatment, CONSORT statement, reporting quality, reporting bias, risk of bias, randomized controlled trials

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