Reported methodological quality of split-mouth studies

J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Sep;34(9):756-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01118.x.


Background/aim: Hujoel & Moulton previously questioned the reported quality of split-mouth studies. Since then, there has been little enquiry into the methodology of this study design. The aim was to conduct a systematic review of the reported methodology of clinical studies using a split-mouth design published in dental journals over a 1-year period (2004).

Material and methods: An extension of the CONSORT guidelines for cluster-randomized designs was used to evaluate quality. We evaluated the methods used and quality of reporting split-mouth studies.

Results: Thirty-four studies were eligible for this review. The results showed that many papers lack essential qualities of good reporting, e.g. five of 34 papers gave the rationale for choosing a split-mouth design, 19 of 34 (56%) used appropriate analytical statistical methods and only one of 34 presented an appropriate sample size calculation. Of the five studies that used survival analysis, none of them used a paired approach.

Conclusions: Despite some progress in statistical analysis, if the reporting of studies represents the actual methodology of the trial, this review has identified important aspects of split-mouth study design and analysis that would benefit from development.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Dental Research / standards*
  • Dental Research / statistics & numerical data
  • Humans
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / standards*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / statistics & numerical data
  • Research Design / standards*
  • Research Design / statistics & numerical data
  • Sample Size
  • Survival Analysis