Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 29, 2025

Oral Biofilm Sampling for Microbiome Analysis in Healthy Children
Published on: December 31, 2017
Examining Bias and Reporting in Oral Health Prediction Modeling Studies
1School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract:
Recent efforts to improve the reliability and efficiency of scientific research have caught the attention of researchers conducting prediction modeling studies (PMSs). Use of prediction models in oral health has become more common over the past decades for predicting the risk of diseases and treatment outcomes. Risk of bias and insufficient reporting present challenges to the reproducibility and implementation of these models. A recent tool for bias assessment and a reporting guideline-PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis)-have been proposed to guide researchers in the development and reporting of PMSs, but their application has been limited. Following the standards proposed in these tools and a systematic review approach, a literature search was carried out in PubMed to identify oral health PMSs published in dental, epidemiologic, and biostatistical journals. Risk of bias and transparency of reporting were assessed with PROBAST and TRIPOD. Among 2,881 papers identified, 34 studies containing 58 models were included. The most investigated outcomes were periodontal diseases (42%) and oral cancers (30%). Seventy-five percent of the studies were susceptible to at least 4 of 20 sources of bias, including measurement error in predictors (n = 12) and/or outcome (n = 7), omitting samples with missing data (n = 10), selecting variables based on univariate analyses (n = 9), overfitting (n = 13), and lack of model performance assessment (n = 24). Based on TRIPOD, at least 5 of 31 items were inadequately reported in 95% of the studies. These items included sampling approaches (n = 15), participant eligibility criteria (n = 6), and model-building procedures (n = 16). There was a general lack of transparent reporting and identification of bias across the studies. Application of the recommendations proposed in PROBAST and TRIPOD can benefit future research and improve the reproducibility and applicability of prediction models in oral health.
More Related Videos
07:32Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Regression Toward the Mean
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...