Synoptic review on existing and potential sources for bias in dental research methodology with methods on their prevention and remedies

Amit Arvind Agrawal, Nilima Prakash, Mohammad Almagbol, Mohammed Alobaid, Abdullah Alqarni, Hammam Altamni
{"title":"Synoptic review on existing and potential sources for bias in dental research methodology with methods on their prevention and remedies","authors":"Amit Arvind Agrawal, Nilima Prakash, Mohammad Almagbol, Mohammed Alobaid, Abdullah Alqarni, Hammam Altamni","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v13.i5.426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The results of years of dental study serve as the foundation for the practise of medicine and, for that matter, dentistry. Doctors may have their own preferences for techniques and materials, but whether directly or indirectly, their decisions are influenced by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, due to poorly conducted or presented research, this very basic foundation may not be reliable. Bias in research is one of several factors that might make study results or research itself unreliable. Bias can be introduced into research at many stages, deliberately or unknowingly. Bias can appear at any point during the research process, even before the study itself begins. There are many biases in research, but some of them are more relevant to dentistry research than others. Because it is said that “eyes see what the mind knows”, it is essential to have a complete understanding of the different types of bias, how and when they get entrenched, and what steps may be taken to prevent or lessen them if they do occur. This comprehensive summary of bias in dentistry research is provided by this synoptic review. The goal is to identify gaps and measures that have been taken-or that should have been taken-by providing both descriptive and evaluative summaries, as well as examples from the literature, when needed.","PeriodicalId":94271,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":"55 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v13.i5.426","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The results of years of dental study serve as the foundation for the practise of medicine and, for that matter, dentistry. Doctors may have their own preferences for techniques and materials, but whether directly or indirectly, their decisions are influenced by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, due to poorly conducted or presented research, this very basic foundation may not be reliable. Bias in research is one of several factors that might make study results or research itself unreliable. Bias can be introduced into research at many stages, deliberately or unknowingly. Bias can appear at any point during the research process, even before the study itself begins. There are many biases in research, but some of them are more relevant to dentistry research than others. Because it is said that “eyes see what the mind knows”, it is essential to have a complete understanding of the different types of bias, how and when they get entrenched, and what steps may be taken to prevent or lessen them if they do occur. This comprehensive summary of bias in dentistry research is provided by this synoptic review. The goal is to identify gaps and measures that have been taken-or that should have been taken-by providing both descriptive and evaluative summaries, as well as examples from the literature, when needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于牙科研究方法中现有和潜在偏差来源的综述,以及预防和纠正偏差的方法
多年的牙科研究成果是医学实践的基础,也是牙科实践的基础。医生们可能对技术和材料有自己的偏好,但无论直接还是间接,他们的决定都会受到系统综述和荟萃分析的影响。然而,由于研究工作不力或介绍不清,这一最基本的基础可能并不可靠。研究中的偏见是可能导致研究结果或研究本身不可靠的几个因素之一。偏见可能在许多阶段有意或无意地被引入研究。偏见可能出现在研究过程的任何阶段,甚至在研究开始之前。研究中有许多偏见,但其中有些偏见与牙科研究的关系更为密切。俗话说 "眼见为实",因此,全面了解不同类型的偏见、它们如何以及何时变得根深蒂固,以及在出现偏见时可以采取哪些措施来防止或减少它们,是非常重要的。本综述对牙科研究中的偏见进行了全面总结。目的是通过提供描述性和评价性摘要以及必要时提供文献中的实例,找出差距和已经采取或应该采取的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anticoagulant use before COVID-19 diagnosis prevent COVID-19 associated acute venous thromboembolism or not: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Botulinum toxin type A for treating chronic low back pain: A double blinded randomized control study. Cluster sampling methodology to evaluate immunization coverage. COVID-19 mutations: An overview. Early versus delayed necrosectomy in pancreatic necrosis: A population-based cohort study on readmission, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital mortality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1