Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of grey literature (i.e. literature that has not been formally published) in systematic reviews may help to overcome some of the problems of publication bias, which can arise due to the selective availability of data. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically research studies, which have investigated the impact of grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 20 May 2005), the Science Citation Index (June 2005) and contacted researchers who may have carried out relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: A study was considered eligible for this review if it compared the effect of the inclusion and exclusion of grey literature on the results of a cohort of meta-analyses of randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from each report independently by two reviewers. The main outcome measure was an estimate of the impact of trials from the grey literature on the pooled effect estimates of the meta-analyses. Information was also collected on the area of health care, the number of meta-analyses, the number of trials, the number of trial participants, the year of publication of the trials, the language and country of publication of the trials, the number and type of grey and published literature, and methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All five studies showed that published trials showed an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This difference was statistically significant in one of the five studies. Data could be combined for three of the five studies. This showed that, on average, published trials showed a 9% greater treatment effect than grey trials (ratio of odds ratios for grey versus published trials 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16). Overall there were more published trials included in the meta-analyses than grey trials (median 224 (IQR 108-365) versus 45(IQR 40-102)). Published trials had more participants on average. The most common types of grey literature were abstracts (55%) and unpublished data (30%). There is limited evidence to show whether grey trials are of poorer methodological quality than published trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that published trials tend to be larger and show an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This has important implications for reviewers who need to ensure they identify grey trials, in order to minimise the risk of introducing bias into their review.

Short-term effects of hygiene education for preschool (kindergarten) children: a clinical study

AIM: To evaluate the outcomes of short (15 minutes) oral hygiene vs. hand hygiene education for preschool children 4 weeks after these interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one preschool children (age range 4-6 years) attending four kindergarten classes participated in a 15-minute health education programme on the importance of body cleanliness for general health. In addition, specific instructions on oral hygiene were provided for two randomly selected classes (30 children), while the remaining two classes (31 children) were given instruction of hand and nail cleaning. The oral hygiene status was assessed usingthe plaque control record (PCR). The cleanliness of the hands and fingernails was determined using a hand hygiene index (HHI) and a nail hygiene index (NHI). All three parameters were assessed before the intervention as well as 4 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: Four weeks after education, the PCR had improved for all children from 79.95% to 72.35% (p < 0.001). The NHI had improved from 74.91% to 61.71% (p < 0.001). In addition, the mean PCR of the children given oral hygiene instruction decreased from 83.67% to 72.40%, while the mean PCR of the children given hand and nail cleaning instruction decreased from 76.23% to 72.29% (interaction effect 'time x type of instruction': p = 0.044). Girls' PCR improved significantly more than boys' PCR (Girls, 80.98 vs. 69.71; boys, 78.33 vs. 75.31; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that even a short, school-based educational intervention at an early age may affect children's oral health promotion significantly. Teachers should, therefore, be encouraged to educate children from an early age about oral hygiene promotion.

Oral Health Education Program on Dental Caries Incidence for School Children.

OBJECTIVE This 3-year retrospective controlled clinical trial assessed the effect of a school-based oral health education program on caries incidence in children. STUDY DESIGN A total of 240 students, aged 5 to 7 years, from two public schools in Monte Sião, Brazil, were included in this study. A school-based oral health education program was developed in one of the schools (experimental group), including 120 students, while the 120 students from the other school did not participate in the program (control group). All children were initially examined for dental caries (dmf-t), and after 3 years, 98 children from the experimental group and 96 from the control group were again examined and answered a questionnaire on oral health issues. The between-groups difference in caries incidence on permanent teeth was calculated using Poisson regression analyses. Logistic regression was used to observe the association between caries incidence and other variables. RESULTS More students from the experimental group stated knowing what was dental caries and declared that they use dental floss daily, but no significant differences in caries incidence was observed between the experimental and control groups. CONCLUSION The school-based oral health education program is not adequately efficient to decrease caries incidence after three years, but some issues about oral health knowledge could be slightly improved.

Effect of Health Risk Assessment and Counselling on Health Behaviour and Survival in Older People: A Pragmatic Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND Potentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival. METHODS AND FINDINGS This study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014. CONCLUSIONS This is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.