Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS—aspects of interrater agreement

Grooten, Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas; Tseli, Elena; Äng, Björn O.; Boersma, Katja; Stålnacke, Britt-Marie; Gerdle, Björn; Enthoven, Paul

doi:10.1186/s41512-019-0050-0

Cited by 143 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The location and severity of third molar impaction could also be a contributing factor, considering the proximity of the third molar to the TMJ. The use of an incorrect surgical technique or failure to support the mandible while extraction of lower third molars is performed was identified as possible factors responsible for TMDs [15,16,18,19,21,22,28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tool consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate, or high risk of bias). It is based on recommendations from a comprehensive review of critical appraisal in prognosis reviews and is informed by epidemiologic principles [14,15].…”

Section: Risk Of Bias (Rob)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QUIPS tool uses six important domains that should be critically analyzed when assessing validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: (1) study participation, (2) study attrition, (3) prognostic factor measurement, (4) outcome measurement, (5) study confounding, and (6) statistical analysis and reporting. The tool includes prompting items related to these six areas with suggestions for operationalization and grading [13][14][15].…”

Section: Risk Of Bias (Rob)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is the extraction of third molars a risk factor for the temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate through a systematic review the extraction of third molars as a risk factor for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Types of studies reviewed Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials where patients underwent third molar extraction and with qualitative evaluation of TMDs before and after extraction were included. Results After applying the inclusion criteria, seven nonrandomized clinical studies were included. QUIPS tool showed that four articles presented a moderate and three a high risk of bias (RoB). Six studies reported that TMDs presented higher level after removal of third molars ranging from OR, 1.81 to 2.15/RR, 2.1. However, one study showed no significant association. GRADE showed heterogeneity in relation to general results, which means that confidence in the estimated effects varied from low to moderate GRADE. The quality of clinical recommendations decreased especially due to the risk of bias in some of the included studies evaluated with the QUIPS tool. Conclusions and practical implications Third molar extraction can be associated with the development of TMD signs and symptoms. Furthermore, TMD can be aggravated according to the third molar location, the degree of impaction and surgical difficulty, age, and gender. This systematic review highlights the need to perform randomized clinical trials with diagnostic criteria and standardized surgical procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias (Rob)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias (Rob)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the extraction of third molars a risk factor for the temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All articles will be assessed independently by two reviewers within the six domains including study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement, outcome measurement, study confounding, and statistical analysis and reporting. Each reviewer will insert relevant information from each paper in a table that would be rated as high, moderate, or low risk of bias [35]. Discrepant scores will be resolved by discussion or consulting a third member of the group.…”

Section: Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroimaging and analytical methods for studying the pathways from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: protocol for a rapid systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder commonly associated with deficits of cognition and changes in behavior. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the prodromal stage of AD that is defined by slight cognitive decline. Not all with MCI progress to AD dementia. Thus, the accurate prediction of progression to Alzheimer's, particularly in the stage of MCI could potentially offer developing treatments to delay or prevent the transition process. The objective of the present study is to investigate the most recent neuroimaging procedures in the domain of prediction of transition from MCI to AD dementia for clinical applications and to systematically discuss the machine learning techniques used for the prediction of MCI conversion. Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science will be searched from January 1, 2017, to the date of search commencement to provide a rapid review of the most recent studies that have investigated the prediction of conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's using neuroimaging modalities in randomized trial or observational studies. Two reviewers will screen full texts of included papers using predefined eligibility criteria. Studies will be included if addressed research on AD dementia and MCI, explained the results in a way that would be able to report the performance measures such as the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Only studies addressed Alzheimer's type of dementia and its early-stage MCI using neuroimaging modalities will be included. We will exclude other forms of dementia such as vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and Parkinson's disease. The risk of bias in individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity.

show abstract

“…Finally, we conducted the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) analysis to evaluate the risk of bias in studies that evaluated the prognostic role of vitamin D (21). The overall risk of bias was considered low if all domains were at low risk or with only one at a moderate level; high if at least one domain was at high risk or >3 classified as moderate; unknown if no judgment could be made; and moderate otherwise (22). Each domain described for each tool was classified according to the risk of bias by one researcher (DL) and revised by a second researcher (JG).…”

Section: Quality Assessment (Risk Of Bias)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Role for Vitamin D in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative condition characterized by the progressive loss of motor neurons. Patients usually die 3-5 years after diagnosis from respiratory failure. Several studies investigated the role of vitamin D as a biomarker or a therapeutic option for ALS patients. To clarify the scientific evidence, we performed a systematic review and different meta-analyses regarding the potential role of vitamin D in ALS. Methods: We performed a systematic review of clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases reporting vitamin D levels as a putative biomarker for ALS diagnosis or prognosis or the effect of vitamin D supplementation in ALS patients. Whenever possible, data were pooled using a random-effects model, with an assessment of heterogeneity. Results: Out of 2,996 articles retrieved, we finally included 13 research articles, 12 observational studies (50% prospective), and 1 clinical trial. We found that ALS patients had slightly lower levels of vitamin D than controls (mean difference −6 ng/ml, 95% CI [−10.8; −1.3]), but important confounding factors were not considered in the studies analyzed. We found no relationship between vitamin D levels and ALS functional rate score-revised (ALSFRS-R), with highly heterogeneous results. Discordant results were reported in three studies regarding survival. Finally, five studies reported the effects of vitamin D supplementation with discordant results. Two of them showed a small improvement, whereas two others showed a deleterious effect on ALSFRS-R. One very small clinical trial with important methodological limitations showed some improvement in ALSFRS-R with high doses of vitamin D compared with normal doses. Conclusions: Our review did not find evidence to support the role of vitamin D on ALS diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment. Most studies had important limitations, mostly regarding the risk of bias for not considering confounding factors. Vitamin D supplementation should be offered to ALS patients to avoid other health issues related to vitamin D deficiency, but there is not enough evidence to support the use of vitamin D as a therapy for ALS.

show abstract

Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS—aspects of interrater agreement

Cited by 143 publications

References 25 publications

Is the extraction of third molars a risk factor for the temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review

Is the extraction of third molars a risk factor for the temporomandibular disorders? A systematic review

Neuroimaging and analytical methods for studying the pathways from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: protocol for a rapid systematic review

Is There a Role for Vitamin D in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About