Display options
Cite
Menne MC, Seitidis G, Faggion CM, et al. Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials. J Dent Res. 2021;101(1):30-36doi: 10.1177/00220345211025242.
Menne, M. C., Seitidis, G., Faggion, C. M., Mavridis, D., & Pandis, N. (2022). Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials. Journal of dental research, 101(1), 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345211025242
Menne, M C, et al. "Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials." Journal of dental research vol. 101,1 (2022): 30-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345211025242
Menne MC, Seitidis G, Faggion CM, Mavridis D, Pandis N. Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials. J Dent Res. 2022 Jan;101(1):30-36. doi: 10.1177/00220345211025242. Epub 2021 Jul 08. PMID: 34237225.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Dent Res. 2022 Jan;101(1):30-36. doi: 10.1177/00220345211025242. Epub 2021 Jul 08.

Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials.

Journal of dental research

M C Menne, G Seitidis, C M Faggion, D Mavridis, N Pandis

Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
  2. Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
  3. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

PMID: 34237225 DOI: 10.1177/00220345211025242

Abstract

Differences in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of meta-analysis might indicate potential novelty bias. The objective of this study was to assess the presence of novelty bias in a sample of studies published in periodontology and implant dentistry. On August 7, 2020, we searched the PubMed database for meta-analyses of clinical studies published between August 2015 and August 2020. Meta-analyses with at least 4 primary studies were selected for assessment. We fitted logistic regression models using trial characteristics as predictors to assess the association between these characteristics and 1) the odds of the first trial's estimate to be included in the meta-analysis confidence interval (CI) and 2) the odds of overlap between the first trial's CI and the meta-analysis prediction interval (PI). Ninety-two meta-analyses provided data for assessment. In absolute values, 70% of the meta-analyses have a pooled estimate smaller than the corresponding estimate of the first trial, although there was overlap of the CI of estimates from the first trial and the meta-analysis in 87% of the cases. This is probably due to the small number of trials in most meta-analyses and the subsequently large uncertainty associated with the pooled effect estimate. As the number of trials in the meta-analysis increased, the odds of the treatment effect estimate of the first trial to be included in the meta-analysis CI decreased by 15% for every additional trial (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96). Meta-analytic effect estimates appear to be more conservative than those from the first trial in the meta-analysis. Our findings show evidence of novelty bias in periodontology and implant dentistry; therefore, clinicians should be aware of the risk of making decisions based on the information reported in new trials because of the risk of exaggerated estimates in these trials.

Keywords: bias; evidence-based dentistry; meta-analysis; methodological study; methods; systematic reviews

References

  1. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Feb;35(2):139-46 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 2005 Jul 13;294(2):218-28 - PubMed
  3. Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):74-85 - PubMed
  4. Epidemiology. 2008 Sep;19(5):640-8 - PubMed
  5. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1385-9 - PubMed
  6. Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1359-66 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;27(10):823-5 - PubMed
  8. Health Technol Assess. 2012 Sep;16(35):1-82 - PubMed
  9. Am J Epidemiol. 2018 May 1;187(5):1113-1122 - PubMed
  10. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Apr;20(2):251-260 - PubMed
  11. Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716 - PubMed
  12. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Mar 17;20(6): - PubMed
  13. Stat Med. 2010 Oct 15;29(23):2369-83 - PubMed
  14. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004 Apr;24(2):126-30 - PubMed
  16. Lancet. 2018 Apr 7;391(10128):1357-1366 - PubMed
  17. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12 - PubMed
  18. Clin Trials. 2017 Oct;14(5):483-488 - PubMed
  19. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 May 11;6:25 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2011 Feb 10;342:d549 - PubMed
  21. Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jul 25;2019:2587245 - PubMed

Publication Types