SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Sponsorship Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials on Postoperative Pain After Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-Research Study.
Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sponsorship Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials on Postoperative Pain After Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-Research Study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate whether sponsorship influences the reporting of positive results and the occurrence of selective outcome reporting (SOR) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacologic interventions for postoperative pain management following third molar extraction.
methodsThis meta-research included RCTs comparing at least one active drug with placebo, two active drugs, or combination thereof, and reporting outcomes related to pain reduction after third molar extraction. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science without date restrictions and last search was performed on 2024 August. Study selection was performed in Rayyan QCRI, with two independent reviewers screening titles, abstracts and full texts. Data extraction was also conducted independently by two reviewers, collecting information on year of publication, trial design, number of groups, placebo comparisons, sample size (number of patients/teeth), follow-up losses, statistical significance of results, protocol registration and funding disclosures. Selective outcome reporting was assessed by comparing registered protocols with published outcomes. Associations between sponsorship status and both SOR and positive result reporting were analysed using chi-square test (α = 0.05).
resultsA total of 430 RCTs were included. No association was found between sponsorship status and SOR (p = 0.861), nor between sponsorship status and the reporting of positive results (p = 0.241).
conclusionsIn this sample, sponsorship was not associated with either selective outcome reporting or the likelihood of reporting positive results in RCTs on postoperative pain management after third molar extraction. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The absence of sponsorship bias in RCTs on third molar extraction suggests that industry-funded and non-sponsored studies provide comparably reliable evidence, supporting clinicians in making unbiased, evidence-based decisions for postoperative pain management in third molar surgery.
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.