Child caries management: A randomized controlled trial in dental practice

This multicenter 3-arm, parallel-group, patient-randomized controlled trial compared clinical effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies over 3 y for managing dental caries in primary teeth in UK primary dental care. Participants aged 3 to 7 y with at least 1 primary molar with dentinal carious lesion were randomized across 3 arms (1:1:1 via centrally administered system with variable-length random permuted blocks): C+P, conventional carious lesion management (complete carious tooth tissue removal and restoration placement) with prevention; B+P, biological management (sealing in carious tooth tissue restoratively) with prevention; and PA, prevention alone (diet, plaque removal, fluorides, and fissure sealants). Parents, children, and dentists were not blind to allocated arm. Co–primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection and 2) the number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection during follow-up (minimum, 23 mo). In sum, 1,144 participants were randomized (C+P, n = 386; B+P, n = 381; PA, n = 377) by 72 general dental practitioners, of whom 1,058 (C+P, n = 352; B+P, n = 352; PA, n = 354) attended at least 1 study visit and were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 33.8 mo (interquartile range, 23.8 to 36.7). Proportions of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 42%; B+P, 40%; PA, 45%. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dental pain and/or infection when B+P (adjusted risk difference [97.5% CI]: −2% [−10% to 6%]) or PA (4% [−4% to 12%]) was compared with C+P. The mean (SD) number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 0.62 (0.95); B+P, 0.58 (0.87); and PA, 0.72 (0.98). Superiority could not be concluded for number of episodes between B+P (adjusted incident rate ratio (97.5% CI): 0.95 [0.75 to 1.21]) or PA (1.18 [0.94 to 1.48]) and C+P. In conclusion, there was no evidence of a difference among the 3 treatment approaches for incidence or number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection experienced by these participants with high caries risk and established disease (trial registration: ISRCTN77044005)

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied

Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study)

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. METHODS: We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% beta blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9-29, p=0.0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease