Clinical intervention studies of orofacial motricity: an analysis of the methodological quality of brazilian studies

Abstract

Purpose: to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical trials published in Brazilian journals. Methods: four trained independent researchers conducted a systematic literature search of all Brazilian speech therapy-related journals over the last ten years, whether the journals were active or inactive. All journal volumes published during that period were selected, and each researcher conducted an individual analysis to identify articles that focused primarily on orofacial motricity. The tools used were the Downs and Black Quality Checklist and the Jadad scale. Results: after the studies were selected and categorized, the final sample comprised six articles, all of which were classified as clinical trials. The observed methodological limitations included a lack of sample planning, randomization and blinding. Mean scores of 16.3 points on the Downs and Black Quality Checklist and 2.3 on the Jadad scale were obtained. Conclusion: the randomized controlled trials in the area of orofacial motricity are scarce in Brazilian literature, suggesting that studies in this area adopting this research design should be expanded and their quality should be improved to promote clinical practice based on scientific evidence.

Biofeedback eletromiográfico e feedback visual na terapia miofuncional: perfil de uso pelos fonoaudiólogos

“…Essa pesquisa foi conduzida com o intuito de compreender o uso de instrumentos de apoio visual como coadjuvantes no trabalho na área de Motricidade Orofacial. Espera-se que esta pesquisa tenha alcançado seu objetivo enquanto estudo científico, não apenas tentando responder os problemas norteadores iniciais, mas também provocando nos autores e leitores outros questionamentos a serem investigados 14 .…”

Spirituality in coping with pain in oncological patients: systematic review

“…For the assessment of the methodological quality, two reviewers independently used the instrument developed by Loney for cross-sectional studies; the quality criteria defined by authors 13 for case report; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies; the check-list proposed by Downs and Black for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials 14,15 . The evaluation of cross-sectional studies consisted of the items sample, source of the sample, sample size, measurement of the outcome, impartial interviewer, response rate, the prevalence with CI95%, and similar participants, in which each appropriate item received a point 13 .…”

“…The checklist for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials consists of 27 items with the domains reporting, external validity, bias, selection and power bias, with each item scoring zero or one, except for item five that can score zero, one or two. The studies with a score equal to or greater than 20, were considered of high quality, 15 to 19 of moderate quality and less than or equal to 14 points low quality 14,15 . The evaluation of the case reports was based on the eight proposed items 19 .…”

Qualidade de vida em indivíduos diabéticos em terapia renal substitutiva: revisão sistemática

“…Para a avaliação da qualidade metodológica, duas revisoras, independentemente, utilizaram o instrumento desenvolvido por Loney para estudos transversais, a Escala Newcastle-Ottawa (ENO) para estudos de coorte e caso controle, e o check-list proposto por Downs e Black para ensaios clínicos randomizados e não randomizados (Fernandes et al, 2017;Warmling et al, 2017;Tomaz-Morais et al, 2018).…”

“…O check-list para ensaios clínicos randomizados e não randomizados é constituído de 27 itens com os domínios relato, validade externa, viés, viés de seleção e poder, sendo que cada item pontua zero ou um, exceto o item cinco que pode ser pontuado com zero, um ou dois. Os estudos com pontuação igual ou superior a 20, foram considerados de alta qualidade, 15 a 19 de moderada qualidade e inferior ou igual a 14 pontos de baixa qualidade (Fernandes et al, 2017;Tomaz-Morais et al, 2018).…”