Focusing on outcomes and methods in removable prosthodontics trials: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically examine the outcomes of interest of trials in removable prosthodontics and to assess their overall quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to August 2011 and complemented by hand searching for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of removable prosthodontics in the six major prosthodontic and implant journals. The primary outcome of RCTs was considered as the outcome of interest of this review, and only manuscripts in which the study's primary outcome was reported in the abstract were included. Outcomes were classified according to the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) classification. The quality of individual reports of RCTs was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Green, www.cochrane-handbook.org). RESULTS: The search retrieved 86 reports of RCTs. Among these publications, 43% reported a patient-oriented primary outcome. Most of the publications did not present a clear description of sequence generation (54%) or allocation concealment (65%). Blinding of participants, clinicians, and outcomes assessors was not applicable or reported in most trials. Handling of withdrawals and losses was adequate in 52% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although published RCTs in removable prosthodontics have increased over time, efforts should be made to increase patient-reported outcomes and the methodological quality of these reports. Such improvement will lead to a better body of evidence in the field, thus providing increased support for clinical decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.878 | 0.845 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.081 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".