scholarly journals Risk of bias assessment of clinical trials published in the Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
José Andrés Calvache ◽  
Leticia Barajas-Nava ◽  
Claudia Sánchez ◽  
Alberto Giraldo ◽  
José Domingo Alarcón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment

scholarly journals Effects of Composite Attachments on Orthodontic Clear Aligners Therapy: A Systematic Review

Materials ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 533
Author(s):  
Riccardo Nucera ◽  
Carolina Dolci ◽  
Angela Mirea Bellocchio ◽  
Stefania Costa ◽  
Serena Barbera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Bodily Movement ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Medium Risk ◽  
Clear Aligner ◽  
Anterior Root

This systematic review aims to highlight the differences between different clear aligner therapies that differ in the presence of attachments or in attachment configuration. Eight electronic databases were searched up to March 2020. Two authors independently proceeded to study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The analysis of the results was carried out examining six groups of movements (mesio-distal tipping/bodily movement; anterior bucco-lingual tipping/root torque; posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion; intrusion; extrusion; rotation). Five clinical trials were selected and all of them showed a medium risk of bias. Literature showed that attachments mostly increase the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, improving anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement; they are also important to increase posterior anchorage. However, some articles showed contradictory or not statistically significant results. Attachments also seem to improve intrusion, but the evidence about this movement, as well as extrusion, is lacking. No studies evaluated posterior bucco-lingual tipping/expansion. Further clinical trials are strongly suggested to clarify the influence of attachments and their number, size, shape, and position on each orthodontic movement.

scholarly journals RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain J Marshall ◽  
Joël Kuiper ◽  
Byron C Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reasonable Accuracy ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Unclear Risk

Abstract Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting text for these judgments. Methods We algorithmically annotated 12,808 trial PDFs using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Trials were labeled as being at low or high/unclear risk of bias for each domain, and sentences were labeled as being informative or not. This dataset was used to train a multi-task ML model. We estimated the accuracy of ML judgments versus humans by comparing trials with two or more independent RoB assessments in the CDSR. Twenty blinded experienced reviewers rated the relevance of supporting text, comparing ML output with equivalent (human-extracted) text from the CDSR. Results By retrieving the top 3 candidate sentences per document (top3 recall), the best ML text was rated more relevant than text from the CDSR, but not significantly (60.4% ML text rated ‘highly relevant' v 56.5% of text from reviews; difference +3.9%, [−3.2% to +10.9%]). Model RoB judgments were less accurate than those from published reviews, though the difference was <10% (overall accuracy 71.0% with ML v 78.3% with CDSR). Conclusion Risk of bias assessment may be automated with reasonable accuracy. Automatically identified text supporting bias assessment is of equal quality to the manually identified text in the CDSR. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload and expedite evidence syntheses.

scholarly journals Recent Research Trends in Moxibustion Treatment in Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ju-Hyeon Lee ◽  
Doo-ree Hwang ◽  
Seung-Hyo Hong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Korean Traditional Medicine ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Circulatory Diseases

A total of 1,235 studies were retrieved on June 23, 2019, from 3 databases. Selected 59 studies were evaluated by year of publication, study type, subject condition/disease, acupoint, standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of moxibustion (STRICTOM), Cochrane risk of bias (RoB), and risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized study (RoBANS). Most studies were conducted in 2011, after which the number of studies decreased. The most common study type was 25 case reports (CR), 16 uncontrolled clinical trials (UCT), 11 randomized controlled trials (RCT), and 7 controlled clinical trials (CCT). Moxibustion treatment was mainly used for musculoskeletal and circulatory diseases/conditions. A total of 83 acupoints were used, A-shi points being the most used. As for STRICTOM, an average of 7.4 items were satisfactory for UCT and CR without a control group, and an average of 9.4 items were satisfactory for RCT and CCT. RCT was assessed using the RoB, and many items were rated as uncertain. In this study, the need for RCT of moxibustion treatment in Korea was identified. The detailed description of study methods and results will provide evidence for the efficacy of moxibustion treatment in preventive and therapeutic aspects of Korean traditional medicine.

scholarly journals Dental Composite Restorations Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 707-738
Author(s):  
Abdulmohsen Al Rabiah ◽  
Alamri Zahrah ◽  
Tuwaym Malath ◽  
Al Daghri Ebtihal ◽  
Al Suhaibani Daniyah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bias Assessment

Background: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. Hence the aim of the present study was to do a systematic review and to analyze the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites and aimed to determine the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results. Materials & Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort design were searched through electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until July 2020 that compared different methods of composite restoration repair and a minimum mean follow-up time of 1 year. There were no restrictions on a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider the risk of bias. Results: We identified 10 articles; two of them were RCTs, and eight prospective cohort studies. There were 530 participants, with 990 teeth, dealing with resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The intervention of defective restorations ranged from minimal intervention to total restoration replacement. The evaluation criteria were also varied with different evaluation protocols. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions: Although different repair protocols are mentioned in the literature according to the included studies, an appropriate and definitive conclusion can't be drawn. However, it seems repairs versus replacements should be considered as the first line of treatment when all factors lead to repair rather than replacement. Further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations, particularly for RBC repair.

scholarly journals Automating Risk of Bias Assessment for Clinical Trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1406-1412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain J Marshall ◽  
Joel Kuiper ◽  
Byron C Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment

Risk of bias assessment of clinical trials published in the Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología☆

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-191
Author(s):  
José Andrés Calvache ◽  
Leticia Barajas-Nava ◽  
Claudia Sánchez ◽  
Alberto Giraldo ◽  
José Domingo Alarcón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment

scholarly journals Medical Versus Surgical Treatment for the Management of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1237
Author(s):  
Aroa Tardáguila-García ◽  
Irene Sanz-Corbalán ◽  
Josep M. García-Alamino ◽  
Raju Ahluwalia ◽  
Luigi Uccioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Healing Rate ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

A systematic review and quality assessment was performed to assess the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis by medical or surgical treatment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used. All selected studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. The literature was revised using PubMed (Medline) and Embase (Elsevier) up to September 2020 to identify clinical trials assessing medical or surgical treatment to manage diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A total of six clinical trials that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 308 participants. Healing rate, complete closure of the wound, and type of complications were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias assessment showed that only two of the six clinical trials included in the systematic review had a low risk of bias. Based on our findings, we believe that the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis remains challenging. There are few high-quality clinical trials that both stratify clinical presentations and compare these treatments. We conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to identify the best option to cure diabetic foot osteomyelitis.

scholarly journals Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina von Wernsdorff ◽  
Martin Loef ◽  
Brunna Tuschen-Caffier ◽  
Stefan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Promising Treatment ◽  
Irritable Bowel

AbstractOpen-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I2 = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document