International Journal of Dentistry

Review Article

Oral Contraceptive Use and Alveolar Osteitis Following Third Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Quality assessment tool for selected studies in this systematic review.
QLilly 1974 [12]Schow 1974 [13]Butler 1977 [14]Nordenram 1983 [15]Al-Khateeb 1991 [16]Larsen 1992 [17]Bonine 1995 [18]Hermesch 1998 [7]Garcia 2003 [19]Blondeau 2007 [20]Alwraikat 2009 [21]Sivolella 2010 [22]Eshghpour 2013 [23]Eshghpour 2013 [24]Almeida 2016 [25]Bhujbal 2019 [26]Nilesh 2019 [27]
1+++++++++++++++++
2+++++++++++++++++
3+++++++++++++++++
4+++++++++++++++++
5−+++−++++++++−+−−
6+−+++++++++++++++
7+++++++++++++++++
8+++++++++++++++++
9+++++++++++++++++
10−−+−+−++++−−++−−−
11+++++++++++++++++
12+−−−−+−+−−−−−+−++
13+++++++++++++++++
14+−−−+−−++−−−−+−++
Q: Question, “+” = low risk/good quality; “−” high risk/poor quality. 1, was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 2, was the study population clearly specific and defined? 3, was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 4, were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? 5, was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? 6, for the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? 7, was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? 8, for exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure or exposure)? 9, were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 10, was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? 11, were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 12, were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? 13, was the loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? 14, were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?