Evaluation of randomised controlled trials published in Indian specialty dental journals for statistical testing of baseline differences: A meta-epidemiological study.

Mahesh R Khairnar, P G Naveen Kumar, Ananta Kusumakar, Zainab Akram, Harloveen Sabharwal, Sachin Jadhav
{"title":"Evaluation of randomised controlled trials published in Indian specialty dental journals for statistical testing of baseline differences: A meta-epidemiological study.","authors":"Mahesh R Khairnar, P G Naveen Kumar, Ananta Kusumakar, Zainab Akram, Harloveen Sabharwal, Sachin Jadhav","doi":"10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_766_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the application of a test of significance to compare the baseline differences between the intervention groups is a common practice, though it has been condemned by many researchers.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess the proportion of RCTs on human participants comparing the baseline differences between intervention groups using the test of significance in nine dental specialty journals published in India and to estimate the proportion of studies reporting baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in a table.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>RCTs published in nine dental journals published by dental specialty associations of India were screened. A literature search was limited to the time duration of five years from 2017 to 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The authors analysed 326 RCTs. Of 326 RCTs published, 237 RCTs (72.7%) did not report the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics table. Tests of significance were applied to compare baseline differences between the intervention arms in 148 (45.4%) RCTs published.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although criticised by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the majority of the trials published in dental specialty journals failed to avoid comparison of baseline differences with significance test and failed to report baseline characteristic table.</p>","PeriodicalId":13311,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Dental Research","volume":"34 3","pages":"308-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Dental Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_766_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the application of a test of significance to compare the baseline differences between the intervention groups is a common practice, though it has been condemned by many researchers.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the proportion of RCTs on human participants comparing the baseline differences between intervention groups using the test of significance in nine dental specialty journals published in India and to estimate the proportion of studies reporting baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in a table.

Materials and methods: RCTs published in nine dental journals published by dental specialty associations of India were screened. A literature search was limited to the time duration of five years from 2017 to 2021.

Results: The authors analysed 326 RCTs. Of 326 RCTs published, 237 RCTs (72.7%) did not report the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics table. Tests of significance were applied to compare baseline differences between the intervention arms in 148 (45.4%) RCTs published.

Conclusions: Although criticised by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the majority of the trials published in dental specialty journals failed to avoid comparison of baseline differences with significance test and failed to report baseline characteristic table.

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
对印度牙科专业期刊上发表的随机对照试验进行评估,以对基线差异进行统计检验:一项元流行病学研究。
背景:在随机对照试验(RCT)中,应用显著性检验来比较干预组之间的基线差异是一种常见的做法,尽管这种做法受到了许多研究人员的谴责:本研究旨在评估在印度出版的九种牙科专业期刊中,使用显著性检验比较干预组基线差异的人类参与者 RCT 的比例,并估算以表格形式报告基线人口统计学和临床特征的研究比例:对印度牙科专业协会出版的九种牙科期刊上发表的 RCT 进行了筛选。文献检索时间仅限于 2017 年至 2021 年的五年内:作者分析了 326 项 RCT。在已发表的 326 项研究中,有 237 项研究(72.7%)未报告基线人口统计学和临床特征表。在已发表的 148 项(45.4%)研究中,采用显著性检验比较了干预组之间的基线差异:结论:尽管受到《试验报告统一标准》(CONSORT)声明的批评,但大多数发表在牙科专业期刊上的试验未能避免使用显著性检验比较基线差异,也未报告基线特征表。
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
Indian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Dental Research (IJDR) is the official publication of the Indian Society for Dental Research (ISDR), India section of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), published quarterly. IJDR publishes scientific papers on well designed and controlled original research involving orodental sciences. Papers may also include reports on unusual and interesting case presentations and invited review papers on significant topics.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite Concentration on the Outcome of Full Pulpotomy in Mature Permanent Teeth with Irreversible Pulpitis - A Systematic Review. Impact of Acidic and Alkaline Environments on the Surface Morphology of Biodentine and White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate - An In-vitro Study. Comparative Analysis of Adaptation of Conventional and Printable Complete Denture Bases to the Underlying Casts - An In Vitro Stereomicroscopic Study. Efficacy of Sodium Fluoride and Fluoridated Calcium Phosphate in Mitigating Dental Erosion on Human Enamel: An In Vitro Analysis. A Modification of Fenestration Technique (MOFT) to Increase Vestibular Depth: A Case Series.
×
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