Editor's Summary and Q&amp;A

Koletsi, Despina; Karagianni, Anthi; Pandis, Nikolaos; Makou, Margarita; Polychronopoulou, Argy; Eliades, Theodore

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.002

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with other dental [4,27] and medical disciplines [28,29,30], we found trials yielding significant differences more often being published in high impact journals. It might be that these trials are more rigorously designed (which was not confirmed by our analysis) or had greater power (which we did not check, but given that sample size was included as an independent variable within the model, is very unlikely).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Design aspects, like unit of randomization or choice of outcome measure, might impact on trial findings. Publication bias might distort the truly-found comparative effects, as significant findings are more often published [4]. Last, all these parameters are likely to change with time given the increasing public or academic demand for a more effective and efficient use of research resources [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The evidence stemming from trials on restorative materials is shaped not only by trial findings, but also trial design and validity. We aimed to evaluate both aspects in randomized controlled dental restorative trials published from 2005–2015. Methods: Using systematic review methodology, we retrieved trials comparing restorative or adhesive dental materials. Two authors independently assessed design, risk of bias, registration status, and findings of trials. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. Results: 114 studies on 15,321 restorations placed mainly in permanent teeth of 5232 patients were included. Per trial, the median number of patients was 37 (25th/75th percentiles: 30/51). Follow-up was 24 (20/48) months. Seventeen percent of trials reported on sample size calculations, 2% had been registered. Most trials (90%) used US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, and had a high risk of bias. More recent trials were more likely to have been registered, to have reported on sample size calculations, to be of low risk of bias, and to use other than USPHS-criteria. Twenty-three percent of trials yielded significant differences between groups. The likelihood of such differences was significantly increased in older studies, studies with potential reporting bias, published in journals with high impact factor (>2), longer follow-up periods, and not using USPHS-criteria. Conclusions: The majority of dental restorative trials published from 2005–2015 had limited validity. Risk of bias decreased in more recent trials. Future trials should aim for high validity, be registered, and use defined and appropriate sample sizes, follow-up periods, and outcome measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many previous meta-analyses have suggested a significant association between PD-L1 and poor prognosis in various tumors, including those of cervical cancer (32), renal cell carcinoma (33), pancreatic cancer (34), and breast cancer (35). It has been shown that journals seem to prefer reporting significant results (36), which may introduce publication bias. Notably, in the current metaanalysis, all included studies did not enroll patients receiving ICIs; therefore, whether PD-L1 expression is associated with the efficacy of ICIs and OS in patients with SCLC remains unclear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Cell Death Ligand1 Expression in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is an immune checkpoint molecule expressed by cancer cells. Previous studies have demonstrated the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), where the results were inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to identify the prognostic impact of PD-L1 on SCLC. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published before and on March 2nd, 2020. Data of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells detected using immunohistochemistry methods were extracted for analysis. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated to assess the correlations among PD-L1, overall survival (OS), and clinicopathological factors. Results: Nine studies of 921 patients published between 2015 and 2019 were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.46-1.80, p = 0.787) indicated that PD-L1 expression is not a significant predictor of poor OS. Moreover, the results also revealed that PD-L1 expression is not significantly associated with gender (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.73-1.74, p = 0.601), age (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.58-2.30, p = 0.683), pN stage (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.24-1.72, p = 0.381), pT stage (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.26-5.23, p = 0.847), serum lactate dehydrogenase level (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.13-8.43, p = 0.958), or performance status (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.24-1.95, p = 0.479). No significant publication bias was detected in this meta-analysis. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression is not a significant prognostic factor of poor survival in SCLC. Because of significant variations, high-quality studies are needed to validate our results.

show abstract

“…Reporting quality must be ensured by avoiding bias, such as selective reporting, deliberate or not. Avoiding reporting insignificant data and outcomes could lead to severe distortion in the SR [32]. Thus, flaws in design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of RCTs can produce bias in the estimates of a treatment effect.…”

Section: Quality In Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women’s Health

Siristatidis

Karageorgiou

Vogiatzi³

2021

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are varied lessons to be learned regarding the current methodological approaches to women’s health research. In the present scheme of growing medical literature and inflation of novel results claiming significance, the sheer amount of information can render evidence-based practice confusing. The factors that classically determined the impact of discoveries appear to be losing ground: citation count and publication rates, hierarchy in author lists according to contribution, and a journal’s impact factor. Through a comprehensive literature search on the currently available data from theses, opinion, and original articles and reviews on this topic, we seek to present to clinicians a narrative synthesis of three crucial axes underlying the totality of the research production chain: (a) critical advances in research methodology, (b) the interplay of academy and industry in a trial conduct, and (c) review- and publication-associated developments. We also provide specific recommendations on the study design and conduct, reviewing the processes and dissemination of data and the conclusions and implementation of findings. Overall, clinicians and the public should be aware of the discourse behind the marketing of alleged breakthrough research. Still, multiple initiatives, such as patient review and strict, supervised literature synthesis, have become more widely accepted. The “bottom-up” approach of a wide dissemination of information to clinicians, together with practical incentives for stakeholders with competing interests to collaborate, promise to improve women’s healthcare.

show abstract

Editor's Summary and Q&A

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials

Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Cell Death Ligand1 Expression in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women’s Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About