Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

15-11-2022 | Review Paper

Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From 2009–2021 Using RoB-2.0 Tool

Authors: Amanjot Kaur, Rishi Kumar Bali, Arun K. Patnana, P. G. Gigi, Akhilesh Pandey, Ganesan Aparna, Kirti Chaudhry

Published in: Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

Analyzing quality of Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) since inception using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0.

Methodology

Three authors independently screened and evaluated the RCTs according to Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria. All six domains of the RoB 2.0 tool were analyzed. The assessment of each judgment can be “Low” or “High” risk of bias, or can express “Some concerns.”

Results

“Some concerns” were found in the randomization process (57%), and “low ROB” was evaluated in the second domain (57%), third domain (96%) and fourth domain (53%).In fifth domain, maximum of the articles had shown either some concerns in ROB (49%) or low ROB (45%).Analysis of the overall ROB in the included articles, maximum of the articles (50%) of the articles had shown high ROB followed by articles with some concerns in the ROB assessment (36%) and only 14% of the included article shad shown the low ROB in the RCT methodology.

Conclusion

The methodological and reporting quality in MAOS journal has a significant room for improvement.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA et al (2001) The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 54:651–654CrossRefPubMed
5.
Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ (2008) Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88(2):156–175CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Dulai SK, Slobogean BL, Beauchamp RD, Mulpuri K (2007) A quality assessment of randomized clinical trials in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop 27(5):573–581CrossRefPubMed
8.
Dodwell E, Dua S, Dulai SK, Astone K, Mulpuri K (2015) The quality of randomized controlled trials in pediatric orthopaedics: are we improving? J Pediatr Orthop 35(5):536–545CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhang J, Chen X, Zhu Q, Cui J, Cao L, Su J (2016) Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials: a survey of seven core journals of orthopaedics from Mainland China over 5 years following the CONSORT statement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(7):933–938CrossRefPubMed
10.
De Moraes VY, Moreira CD, Tamaoki MJS, Faloppa F, Belloti JC (2010) Randomized controlled trials in orthopedics and traumatology: systematic analysis on the national evidence. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition) 45(6):601–605CrossRef
11.
Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV, Jokstad A (2001) Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of oral implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16(6):783–792PubMed
12.
Moraschini V, Barboza ES (2016) Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar socket preservation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45(9):1126–1134CrossRefPubMed
13.
Chaudhry K, Bali RK, Kaur A, Tiwari RVC, Patnana AK (2021) Level of evidence analysis in Journal of Maxillofacial Oral Surgery: a twelve-year bibliometric analysis of 1300 publications (2009–2020). J Maxillofac Oral Surg 20(3):364–372CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, Niu Y, Du L (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8(1):2–10CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lim CY, In J (2019) Randomization in clinical studies [published correction appears in Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019 Aug;72(4):396]. Korean J Anesthesiol 72(3):221–232CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Kang M, Ragan BG, Park JH (2008) Issues in outcomes research: an overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. J Athl Train 43(2):215–221CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP (1998) Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152(8):812–817CrossRefPubMed
18.
Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352(9128):609–613CrossRefPubMed
19.
Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 309(22):1358–1361CrossRefPubMed
20.
Schulz KF (2001) Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother? Evid Based Nurs 4:4–6CrossRefPubMed
21.
Fielding S, Ogbuagu A, Sivasubramaniam S, MacLennan G, Ramsay CR (2016) Reporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade? Qual Life Res 25(12):2977–2983CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Montori VM, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Guyatt GH (2002) In the dark. The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 55:787–790CrossRefPubMed
23.
Vorland CJ, Brown AW, Dawson JA et al (2021) Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance. Int J Obes 45:2335–2346CrossRef
24.
25.
Haahr M, Hróbjartsson A (2006) Who is blinded in randomised clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials 3:360–365CrossRefPubMed
26.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT (2010) statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010(23):332–340
Metadata
Title
Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From 2009–2021 Using RoB-2.0 Tool
Authors
Amanjot Kaur
Rishi Kumar Bali
Arun K. Patnana
P. G. Gigi
Akhilesh Pandey
Ganesan Aparna
Kirti Chaudhry
Publication date
15-11-2022
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
Print ISSN: 0972-8279
Electronic ISSN: 0974-942X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-022-01795-2