We have successfully identified a variety of methodological assessment tools for different types of study design. However, further efforts in the development of critical appraisal tools are warranted since there is currently a lack of such tools for other fields, e.g. genetic studies, and some existing tools (nested case-control studies and case reports, for example) are in need of updating to be in line with current research practice and rigor. In addition, it is very important that all critical appraisal tools remain subjective and performance bias is effectively avoided.

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient -reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

BackgroundMany epidemiological studies have found a positive association between periodontal disease (PD) and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but this association is varied and even contradictory among studies. We performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the relationship between PD and COPD.MethodsPubMed and Embase database were searched up to January 10, 2012, for relevant observational studies on the association between PD and risk of COPD. Data from the studies selected were extracted and analyzed independently by two authors. The meta-analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.ResultsFourteen observational studies (one nested case-control, eight case-control, and five cross-sectional) involving 3,988 COPD patients were yielded. Based on random-effects meta-analysis, a significant association between PD and COPD was identified (odds ratio = 2.08, 95% confidence interval = 1.48–2.91; P<0.001), with sensitivity analysis showing that the result was robust. Subgroups analyses according to study design, ethnicity, assessment of PD/COPD, and adjusted/unadjusted odds ratios also revealed a significant association. Publication bias was detected.ConclusionsBased on current evidence, PD is a significant and independent risk factor of COPD. However, whether a causal relationships exists remains unclear. Morever, we suggest performing randomized controlled trails to explore whether periodontal interventions are beneficial in regulating COPD pathogenesis and progression.

BackgroundMany epidemiological studies have found a positive association of periodontal disease (PD) with risk of head and neck cancer (HNC), but the findings are varied or even contradictory. In this work, we performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the relationship between PD and HNC risk.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant observational studies on the association between PD and HNC risk published up to March 23, 2013. Data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed independently by two authors. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software.ResultsWe obtained seven observational studies involving two cohort and six case-control studies. Random-effects meta-analysis indicated a significant association between PD and HNC risk (odds ratio = 2.63, 95% confidence interval = 1.1.68 - 4.14; p < 0.001), with sensitivity analysis showing that the result was robust. Subgroup analyses based on adjustment for covariates, study design, PD assessment, tumor site, and ethnicity also revealed a significant association.ConclusionsBased on currently evidence, PD is probably a significant and independent risk factor of HNC.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the

No abstract

Evidence from cohort studies suggests that patients with periodontal disease are at increased risk of developing lung cancer.

No abstract