Skip to main content

Table 3 Methods used by review authors to incorporate split-mouth RCTs into meta-analyses

From: Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

Review Split-mouth and parallel arm RCTs combined Standard error of the treatment effect estimate in split-mouth RCTs
  Together Separately (subgroups)  
1. Annibali [18] Yes Yes Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented
2. Atieh [19] Yes No Not clear
3. Brignardello-Petersen [20] Yes Yes Within-patient correlation assumed equal to 0
4. Cairo [21] Yes No Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented
5. Carrasco-Labra [22] Yes Yes Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented. Within-patient correlation assumed equal to 0.75
6. Chambronne [23] Yes Yes Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented
7. Del Fabbro [24] Yes No Not clear
8. Esposito [25] Yes No Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented
9. Esposito [26] Yes Yes Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented. Within-patient correlation assumed equal to 0.25 (median ICC in similar review, Needleman [33])
10. Esposito [27] Yes No Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented
11. Fleming [28] Yes No Calculated using Borenstein [16]
12. Imai [29] Yes No Not clear
13. Lodi [30] Yes No Not clear
14. Mickenautsch [31] Yes No Not clear
15. Muller-Bolla [32] Yes No Not clear
16. Needleman [33] Yes Yes Imputed using Follmann [13], with the appropriate data not presented. Within-patient correlation assumed equal to 0.25
17. Sgolastra [35] Yes No Not clear
18. Yong [36] Yes No Not clear