Search

Background: To assess the frequency of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and non‐PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers. Methods: We included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000–2002, 2010–2012, and 2020–2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non‐PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined. Results: There was a reduction in the frequency of non‐PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non‐PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non‐PROs was identified. Conclusions: There has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non‐PROs were the most prevalent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal–orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal–orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR‐2 tool (the acronym is derived from 'a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews') to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR‐2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR‐2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta‐analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR‐2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal–orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that doctors will likely select this type of study to answer clinical questions. In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta‐analyses may provide imprecise estimates when important meta‐analysis parameters are not considered during the synthesis. The aim of this case study was to highlight the influence of meta‐analysis parameters that can affect reported estimates using as an example pre‐existing meta‐analyses on the association between implant survival and sinus membrane perforation. PubMed was searched on 7 July 2021 for meta‐analyses comparing implant failure in perforated and non‐perforated sinus membranes. Primary studies identified in these meta‐analyses were combined in a new random‐effects model with odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals reported. Using this new meta‐analysis, further meta‐analyses were then undertaken considering the clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity of the primary studies, publication bias, and clustering effects. The meta‐analyses with the greatest number and more homogeneous studies provided lower odds of implant failure in non‐perforated sites (OR 0.49, 95 % CI = [0.26, 0.92]). However, when considering heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering (number of implants), the confidence in these results was reduced. Interpretation of estimates reported in systematic reviews can vary depending on the assumptions made in the meta‐analysis. Users of these analyses need to carefully consider the impact of heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering, which can affect the size, direction, and interpretation of the reported estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]