Reported methodological quality of split-mouth studies
(2007) Journal of Clinical Periodontology — Vol. 34, n° 9, p. 756-761 (2007)
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Background/Aim: Hujoel & Moulton previously questioned the reported quality of split-mouth studies. Since then, there has been little enquiry into the methodology of this study design. The aim was to conduct a systematic review of the reported methodology of clinical studies using a split-mouth design published in dental journals over a 1-year period (2004). Materials and Methods: An extension of the CONSORT guidelines for cluster-randomized designs was used to evaluate quality. We evaluated the methods used and quality of reporting split-mouth studies. Results: Thirty-four studies were eligible for this review. The results showed that many papers lack essential qualities of good reporting, e.g. five of 34 papers gave the rationale for choosing a split-mouth design, 19 of 34 (56%) used appropriate analytical statistical methods and only one of 34 presented an appropriate sample size calculation. Of the five studies that used survival analysis, none of them used a paired approach. Conclusions: Despite some progress in statistical analysis, if the reporting of studies represents the actual methodology of the trial, this review has identified important aspects of split-mouth study design and analysis that would benefit from development.
- Affiliations
Citations
Lesaffre, E., Zattera, M.-J. G., Redmond, C., Huber, H., & Needleman, I. (2007). Reported methodological quality of split-mouth studies. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 34(9), 756-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01118.x (Original work published 2007)