PubMed · 10532166
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Savage. 1999. Re: Statistical significance testing.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho%2F26.3.244
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of Medline searches for randomised controlled trials in dental research (RCT-Ds), using the medical subject headings (MeSH-terms). DESIGN: The Medline database was searched for randomised controlled trials in dental research (RCT-Ds) published in 1999 and with MeSH-terms corresponding to different areas of dental research. All RCT-Ds were manually examined for relevance to the different areas of dental research and cross-tabulated against the Medline search results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (precision) and negative predictive values, as well as the accuracy of the search results were calculated. RESULTS: The highest validity in the Medline searches for RCT-Ds was seen for endodontics, followed by orthodontics, whereas the lowest validity was seen for pediatric dentistry and public health dentistry. For pediatric dentistry the MeSH-term searches had too low a sensitivity for adequate location of RCT-Ds. CONCLUSIONS: MeSH-term searches on Medline are a useful tool for rapid location of RCT-Ds in most areas of dental research. However, there is a vast variation in the search validity. More refined search strategies are required to locate RCT-Ds in areas of dental research with low search validity.
OBJECTIVE: To assess 1) the quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental (RCT-Ds) and medical research (RCT-Ms), 2) the quality of RCT reports in relation to the journal impact factor, 3) the source of funding, and 4) the quality of RCT-Ds in different areas of dental research. DESIGN RANDOM: samples of 100 RCT-Ds and 100 RCT-Ms published in 1999 were evaluated for quality of reporting under blinded conditions with the Jadad quality assessment scale. In addition, correlation between the quality scores and journal impact factor or source of funding, as well as area of dental research were analysed. RESULTS: The quality of RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms published in 1999 was generally inadequate. The quality was largely equivalent in RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms. There was no correlation between the quality scores and the journal impact factor or the source of funding. Some differences were found in the quality scores between different areas of dental research. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms show that most of them were imperfect in the reporting of methodology and trial conduct. There is a clear need to improve the quality of trial reporting in dental and medical research.
This exercise of isolating the strongest article from the found titles should take no more than 1 to 2 minutes. Thus, the whole process of searching for the best evidence should take no more than 5 minutes. In medical practices where evidence based practice is done routinely, this process can be completed in less than 1 minute. Obviously, the evaluation could not have been made as expeditiously without the benefit of the specific details articulated in the question. The question focused the search terms and expedited the identification of the strongest evidence that directly addressed the patient's problem from among the found titles. It provided the dentist with good (but not compelling) evidence to support an answer to the patient. It also provided the dentist with a new piece of information to use the next time the problem of reduced implant support comes up. The dentist has thus enjoyed the satisfaction of quickly identifying new knowledge and the confidence that comes with its use. In addition, the information has provided the dentist with a small but important block against the deterioration of clinical judgment skills.