2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-31802011000200006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the highest level of evidence when the research question relates to the effect of therapeutic or preventive interventions. However, the degree of control over bias between RCTs presents great variability between studies. For this reason, with the increasing interest in and production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it has been necessary to develop methodology supported by empirical evidence, so as to encourage and enha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
(49 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While most of these studies evaluated the ROB of RCTs and/or their influence in specific fields, such as dentistry [5], pediatrics [6], and persistent asthma treatment [7], other studies have assessed the internal validity of RCTs, inter-rater agreement [8], [9], and concurrent validity [8], [9]. Some reviews have contrasted the ROB tool with other tools, such as the Jadad scale [7], [8], the Schulz approach [7], [8], and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP) [9].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While most of these studies evaluated the ROB of RCTs and/or their influence in specific fields, such as dentistry [5], pediatrics [6], and persistent asthma treatment [7], other studies have assessed the internal validity of RCTs, inter-rater agreement [8], [9], and concurrent validity [8], [9]. Some reviews have contrasted the ROB tool with other tools, such as the Jadad scale [7], [8], the Schulz approach [7], [8], and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP) [9].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have highlighted that searching in LILACS may increase the number of included studies in systematic reviews; however, it is unclear whether the results and conclusions would be altered by including this evidence (Clark & Castro, 2002; Pereira et al, 2019). Moreover, some studies have indicated that the search yield might be low and that the retrieved studies would be at a high risk of bias (de Freitas, André, et al, 2005; Ferreira et al, 2011). Our study did not assess whether searching in LILACS resulted in a greater yield for retrieving primary studies, but we highlight that the heterogeneity in use and the limitations of this resource may impede a proper assessment of the relative contribution of LILACS in the identification of primary studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two groups were identical regarding control over selection bias and, thus, this appears not to be a condition relating only to the field of oral health. This result was unexpected, because some studies [16][17]19,23,27,[30][31][32]34 have shown that RCTs within oral health were of poor or inadequate quality. Similarly, Peters (2015) assessed the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs within the literature relating to otorhinolaryngology and found that the quality of reporting of RCTs was suboptimal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[16][17][18] However, today, there is a tendency for each research group only to evaluate data from their own field. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] True randomized controlled trials allow healthcare providers to make informed inferences about the validity of these trials.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%