Seventeen were deleted due to bias, ten were deleted due to lack of follow-up, and 31 were deleted as they were not relevant to the meta-analysis. Interevaluator agreement was high, with k ranging from moderate to almost perfect agreement for the three stages of the systematic deletion of publications from the study. In the presence of an RCT meeting of the inclusion criteria, a stratification of levels 1 and 2 evidence was used. Though language was not an exclusion

criterion in the systematic deletion of publications, no non-English text studies were selected for full-text review, as we could not reliably interpret such literature to see if it fit our strict inclusion criteria. An empirical study found that this exclusion was not a disadvantage, as studies published in a language other than English tended selleck chemicals to overestimate PF-01367338 clinical trial the treatment effect by 10%,[30] while unpublished studies would underestimate the intervention effect by the same percentage. This same study demonstrated that papers not indexed in MEDLINE overestimate the therapeutic effect by 5%. This study concluded that the quality of the trial is more important than the reporting and dissemination of the information

gathered from the trial in terms of source of bias. Between cement- and screw-retained crowns, there was no significant difference in the actual major failure outcome rate (0.71 vs. 0.87/ 100 years, respectively). When performing the data extraction, some manuscripts were unable to be analyzed thoroughly for follow-up or allocation of bias. As such,

the authors of ten papers were contacted by e-mail to elaborate on their data. An example of a common question was, “to the nearest 6-month interval, when did the porcelain fracture occur in the screw-retained group?” or, “how many times did the prosthetic screw of implant three become loose?” The authors of nine papers replied with answers that allowed the publication to undergo complete data extraction. One author did not reply after three e-mails, and additional correspondence was exchanged with that author’s secretary. This study could not be included Vasopressin Receptor as it was not known how many restorations were screw- or cement-retained, or in which cohort the major failure occurred. Exclusion of this article was effected to ensure that strict inclusion criteria were maintained and that data amenable to analysis were available. The process of contacting authors after reading full texts led to one extra article becoming eligible for evaluation in the meta-analysis. Levine et al were contacted regarding their 1999 and 2002 papers, and proposed their 2007 article that had not been retrieved by any of the nine database searches.[17-19] All three evaluators selected this article for data extraction. The study had strict exclusion criteria to ensure validity when abstracts and full texts were analyzed. Such examples include excluding restorations that included a cantilever or contained an acrylic instead of porcelain veneering material.