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