Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children

Abstract

In conducting a systematic review, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies is a vital step; thus, choosing the most pertinent risk of bias (ROB) tools is crucial. This paper determined the most appropriate ROB tools for assessing observational studies in a systematic review assessing the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. First, we determined the ROB tools used in previous reviews on a similar topic. Subsequently, we reviewed articles on ROB tools to identify the most recommended ROB tools for observational studies. Of the twelve ROB tools identified from the previous steps, three ROB tools that best fit the eight criteria of a good ROB tool were the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for a cross-sectional study. We further assessed the inter-rater reliability for all three tools by analysing the percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa score. The overall percentage agreements and reliability scores of these tools ranged from good to excellent. Two ROB tools for the cross-sectional study were further evaluated qualitatively against nine of a tool’s advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the AHRQ and NOS were selected as the most appropriate ROB tool to assess cross-sectional and cohort studies in the present review.

RETRACTED: Screen Time and Body Mass Index Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…For each of items, one score is given if the quality of the study meets the methodological criteria. An overall score of 0–4 denotes a high risk of bias, scores between 5 and 7 denotes a moderate risk of bias, and 8–11 denoted a low risk of bias ( 34 ).…”

Genetic Association Studies in Transgender Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Mamikutty et al, 2021; Wells et al, 2014) was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. This scale measures study quality along three domains; selection of participants, comparability of groups, and the measurement of outcome.…”

Prevalence of anxiety symptoms among Chinese university students amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…An evaluation was rated high-quality if it received an 8 or greater. The scale is recommended by authorities and has been found to have good inter-rater reliability by researchers ( Mamikutty et al, 2021 ).…”

“…An evaluation was rated high-quality if it received an 8 or greater. The scale is recommended by authorities and has been found to have good inter-rater reliability by researchers (Mamikutty et al, 2021). This study's first and second authors conducted research inclusion, data extraction, and article quality evaluation and evaluation.…”