Identifying and Avoiding Risk of Bias in Caries Diagnostic Studies
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Identifying and Avoiding Risk of Bias in Caries Diagnostic Studies. / Kühnisch, Jan; Janjic Rankovic, Mila; Kapor, Svetlana; Schüler, Ina; Krause, Felix; Michou, Stavroula; Ekstrand, Kim; Eggmann, Florin; Neuhaus, Klaus W.; Lussi, Adrian; Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte.
In: Journal of Clinical Medicine, Vol. 10, No. 15, 3223, 2021.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying and Avoiding Risk of Bias in Caries Diagnostic Studies
AU - Kühnisch, Jan
AU - Janjic Rankovic, Mila
AU - Kapor, Svetlana
AU - Schüler, Ina
AU - Krause, Felix
AU - Michou, Stavroula
AU - Ekstrand, Kim
AU - Eggmann, Florin
AU - Neuhaus, Klaus W.
AU - Lussi, Adrian
AU - Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Caries diagnostic studies differ with respect to their design, included patients/tooth samples, use of diagnostic and reference methods, calibration, blinding and data reporting. Such heterogeneity makes comparisons between studies difficult and could represent a substantial risk of bias (RoB) when it is not identified. Therefore, the present report aims to describe the development and background of a RoB assessment tool for caries diagnostic studies. The expert group developed and agreed to use a RoB assessment tool during three workshops. Here, existing instruments (e.g., QUADAS 2 and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual) influenced the hierarchy and phrasing of the signalling questions that were adapted to the specific dental purpose. The tailored RoB assessment tool that was created consists of 16 signalling questions that are organized in four domains. This tool considers the selection/spectrum bias (1), the bias of the index (2) and reference tests (3), and the bias of the study flow and data analysis (4) and can be downloaded from the journal website. This paper explores possible sources of heterogeneity and bias in caries diagnostic studies and summarizes the relevant methodological aspects.
AB - Caries diagnostic studies differ with respect to their design, included patients/tooth samples, use of diagnostic and reference methods, calibration, blinding and data reporting. Such heterogeneity makes comparisons between studies difficult and could represent a substantial risk of bias (RoB) when it is not identified. Therefore, the present report aims to describe the development and background of a RoB assessment tool for caries diagnostic studies. The expert group developed and agreed to use a RoB assessment tool during three workshops. Here, existing instruments (e.g., QUADAS 2 and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual) influenced the hierarchy and phrasing of the signalling questions that were adapted to the specific dental purpose. The tailored RoB assessment tool that was created consists of 16 signalling questions that are organized in four domains. This tool considers the selection/spectrum bias (1), the bias of the index (2) and reference tests (3), and the bias of the study flow and data analysis (4) and can be downloaded from the journal website. This paper explores possible sources of heterogeneity and bias in caries diagnostic studies and summarizes the relevant methodological aspects.
KW - caries detection
KW - caries diagnostics
KW - caries assessment
KW - caries monitoring
KW - methodology
KW - laboratory studies
KW - clinical studies
KW - reference standard
KW - SAMPLE-SIZE
KW - CORRELATION-COEFFICIENT
KW - ASSESSMENT SPECTRUM
KW - SENSITIVITY
KW - AGREEMENT
KW - REPRODUCIBILITY
KW - SPECIFICITY
KW - PERFORMANCE
KW - PREVALENCE
KW - VALIDATION
U2 - 10.3390/jcm10153223
DO - 10.3390/jcm10153223
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34362007
VL - 10
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
SN - 2077-0383
IS - 15
M1 - 3223
ER -
ID: 276375456