scholarly journals Developing evidence-based dentistry skills: how to interpret randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliana Kiriakou ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis ◽  
Phoebus Madianos ◽  
Argy Polychronopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Dentistry

Randomized Clinical Trials in Pediatric Dentistry: Application of Evidence-Based Dentistry through the CONSORT Statement

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Garrocho-Rangel ◽  
Socorro Ruiz-Rodríguez ◽  
César Gaitán-Fonseca ◽  
Amaury Pozos-Guillén
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Pediatric Dentistry ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Consort Statement ◽  
Pediatric Dentists ◽  
Evidence Based Dentistry

In order to include appropriate informed decisions on dental therapeutic or preventive procedures in children, Pediatric Dentists should apply the fundamentals of “Evidence-Based Dentistry” (EBD). This oral health approach assists clinicians in understanding and applying the most relevant research published on evidence in the clinical setting when treating their patients. One of the crucial steps of EBD is to critically appraise and use the primary articles about therapy or prevention, namely, Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT), the study design that best addresses the questions related with these clinical areas. The aim of the present paper was to provide the basic concepts and an example of how to critically read and understand articles on RCT studies in Pediatric Dentistry employing the CONSORT statement, a process that involves assessing the reliability of results, risk of bias (internal validity), and applicability of reported clinical findings (external validity).

Liraglutide for the Treatment of Obesity: Analyzing Published Reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 1783-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosario Pastor ◽  
Josep A. Tur
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Treatment Of Obesity

Background: Several drugs have been currently approved for the treatment of obesity. The pharmacokinetic of liraglutide, as well as the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, have been widely described. Objective: To analyze the published systematic reviews on the use of liraglutide for the treatment of obesity. Methods: Systematic reviews were found out through MEDLINE searches, through EBSCO host and the Cochrane Library based on the following terms: "liraglutide" as major term and using the following Medical Subject Headings (MesH) terms: "obesity", "overweight", "weight loss". A total of 3 systematic reviews were finally included to be analyzed. Results: From the three systematic reviews selected, only two included the randomized clinical trials, while the third study reviewed both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. Only one review performed statistical tests of heterogeneity and a meta-analysis, combining the results of individual studies. Another review showed the results of individual studies with odds ratio and confidence interval, but a second one just showed the means and confidence intervals. In all studies, weight loss was registered in persons treated with liraglutide in a dose dependent form, reaching a plateau at 3.0 mg dose, which was reached just in men. Most usual adverse events were gastrointestinal. Conclusion: More powerful and prospective studies are needed to assess all aspects related to liraglutide in the overweight and obesity treatment.

scholarly journals Publication Trends in Rheumatology Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995–2017

2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200593
Author(s):  
Michael S. Putman ◽  
Alexander Chaitoff ◽  
Joshua D. Niforatos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Academic Pressure ◽  
Technological Advances

The growth of systematic reviews and metaanalyses (SRMA) has outpaced the growth of randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many medicine subspecialties1. This may reflect technological advances in SRMA production, fewer barriers to publish, or academic pressure to produce citations2.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of studies included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi ◽  
Pouria Iranparvar ◽  
Maryam Shakiba ◽  
Erfan Shamsoddin ◽  
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Performance Bias

AbstractObjectivesThe Risk of Bias (RoB) and other characteristics of randomized clinical trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were assessed.Study Design and SettingsAll the trials included in Cochrane oral health systematic reviews were examined. The RoB was evaluated for all the included clinical trials according to the Cochrane review standards. The Overall Risk of Bias (ORoB) was defined in this study based on the criteria for determining the overall bias in Cochrane’s RoB tool-v2. Descriptive analyses were carried out to determine the frequency of each intended variable.ResultsA total of 2565 studies were included in our analysis. The majority of the studies (n=1600) had sample sizes of 50 or higher. As for blinding, 907 studies were labelled as double-blind. Performance bias showed the highest rate of high risk (31.4%). Almost half of the studies had a high ORoB compared to 11.1% with low ORoB. The studies that used placebos had higher low ORoB (14.8% vs. 10.7%). The double-blind studies had the highest low ORoB (23.6%). The studies with a cross-over design had the highest low ORoB (28.8%).ConclusionOverall, the RoB for the studies on dentistry and oral health in Cochrane reviews was deemed high.

scholarly journals Vitamin D Food Fortification and Nutritional Status in Children: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 2766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Nascimento Brandão-Lima ◽  
Beatriz da Cruz Santos ◽  
Concepción Maria Aguilera ◽  
Analícia Rocha Santos Freire ◽  
Paulo Ricardo Saquete Martins-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Hypovitaminosis D ◽  
Food Fortification ◽  
Fortified Foods ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Children are in the risk group for developing hypovitaminosis D. Several strategies are used to reduce this risk. Among these, fortification of foods with vitamin D (25(OH)D) has contributed to the achievement of nutritional needs. This systematic review aims to discuss food fortification as a strategy for maintenance or recovery of nutritional status related to vitamin D in children. The work was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42018052974). Randomized clinical trials with children up to 11 years old, who were offered vitamin D-fortified foods, and who presented 25(OH)D concentrations were used as eligibility criteria. After the selection stages, five studies were included, totaling 792 children of both sexes and aged between two and 11 years. Interventions offered 300–880 IU of vitamin D per day, for a period of 1.6–9 months, using fortified dairy products. In four of the five studies, there was an increase in the serum concentrations of 25(OH)D with the consumption of these foods; additionally, most children reached or maintained sufficiency status. Moreover, the consumption of vitamin D-fortified foods proved to be safe, with no concentrations of 25(OH)D > 250 nmol/L. Based on the above, the fortification of foods with vitamin D can help maintain or recover the nutritional status of this vitamin in children aged 2–11 years. However, it is necessary to perform additional randomized clinical trials in order to establish optimal doses of fortification, according to the peculiarities of each region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document