ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published In Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) From 2009-2021 Using RoB-2.0 Tool.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Analyzing quality of Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery (MAOS) since inception using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0. Methodology: Three authors independently screened and evaluated the RCTs according to Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria. All six domains of the RoB 2.0 tool were analyzed. The assessment of each judgment can be "Low" or "High" risk of bias, or can express "Some concerns." Results: "Some concerns" were found in the randomization process (57%), and "low ROB" was evaluated in the second domain (57%), third domain (96%) and fourth domain (53%).In fifth domain, maximum of the articles had shown either some concerns in ROB (49%) or low ROB (45%).Analysis of the overall ROB in the included articles, maximum of the articles (50%) of the articles had shown high ROB followed by articles with some concerns in the ROB assessment (36%) and only 14% of the included article shad shown the low ROB in the RCT methodology. Conclusion: The methodological and reporting quality in MAOS journal has a significant room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.