| Affiliation: | 1. Evidence-Based Hub, Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Egas Moniz, CRL, Monte de Caparica, Portugal;2. Perioteam Training Center, Irapuato, Mexico;3. Private Practice, Atelier Dental, Madrid, Spain Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Massachusetts, Boston, USA |
| Abstract: | Different types of errors and complications may arise during and after the execution of periodontal or implant-related procedures. Some of the most relevant, although also controversial, and less commented, causative agents of errors and complications are methodological biases and bad interpretation of the evidence. Proper assessment of the literature requires of solid clinical knowledge combined with a systematic approach built on the recognition of common methodological biases and the avoidance of interpretive errors to critically retrieve, dissect, and judiciously apply available information for the promotion of periodontal and peri-implant health. This review addresses common types of methodological bias and interpretive errors that can alter the reader's perceptions on the real effect and potential ramifications of the reported outcomes of a given therapeutic approach due to bad interpretation of the available evidence: (1) types of methodological biases; (2) spin and interpretive bias; (3) interpretation pitfalls when assessing the evidence (4) choice of relevant endpoints to answer the question(s) of interest; and (5) balance between statistical significance and clinical relevance. |
