Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025
10:42
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
6.4K
Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From
Amanjot Kaur1, Rishi Kumar Bali2, Arun K Patnana3
1Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan India.
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
|February 4, 2025
Summary
This study assessed Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Findings indicate significant room for improvement in the methodological and reporting quality of published RCTs.
Area of Science:
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Clinical Trial Methodology
- Evidence-Based Dentistry
Background:
- The quality of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) is crucial for evidence-based practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
- Assessing the risk of bias in published RCTs helps identify limitations in study design and execution.
- The Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) is a key publication venue for surgical research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs published in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) since its inception.
- To assess the risk of bias across multiple domains using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 (RoB 2.0).
- To identify specific areas of concern in the quality of RCTs to guide future research and reporting standards.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and quality assessment of RCTs published in MAOS.
- Independent screening and evaluation of eligible RCTs by three authors.
- Application of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 (RoB 2.0), analyzing all six domains for risk of bias (Low, High, or Some Concerns).
Main Results:
- "Some concerns" regarding bias were identified in the randomization process for 57% of studies.
- Low risk of bias was observed in the second (57%), third (96%), and fourth (53%) domains.
- The fifth domain showed a mix of "some concerns" (49%) and "low ROB" (45%).
- Overall, 50% of included RCTs exhibited a high risk of bias, 36% had "some concerns," and only 14% demonstrated a low risk of bias.
Conclusions:
- The methodological and reporting quality of RCTs published in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery requires substantial improvement.
- Addressing identified risks of bias is essential to enhance the reliability and validity of surgical research in the field.
- Future research and editorial policies should focus on strengthening RCT methodology and reporting standards within MAOS.
