Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children

• Main Authors: Rokiah Mamikutty, Ameera Syafiqah Aly, Jamaludin Marhazlinda
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-08-01
• Series: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Subjects: child; systematic review; methods; observational study; bias
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8623
• ISSN: 1661-7827; 1660-4601

In conducting a systematic review, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies is a vital step; thus, choosing the most pertinent risk of bias (ROB) tools is crucial. This paper determined the most appropriate ROB tools for assessing observational studies in a systematic review assessing the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. First, we determined the ROB tools used in previous reviews on a similar topic. Subsequently, we reviewed articles on ROB tools to identify the most recommended ROB tools for observational studies. Of the twelve ROB tools identified from the previous steps, three ROB tools that best fit the eight criteria of a good ROB tool were the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for a cross-sectional study. We further assessed the inter-rater reliability for all three tools by analysing the percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa score. The overall percentage agreements and reliability scores of these tools ranged from good to excellent. Two ROB tools for the cross-sectional study were further evaluated qualitatively against nine of a tool’s advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the AHRQ and NOS were selected as the most appropriate ROB tool to assess cross-sectional and cohort studies in the present review.