Author | Number of contacting attemptsa | Willingness of authors to reply | Number of research questions answered | Additional research data provided by the contacted authors and its consequences |
---|---|---|---|---|
Motoyoshi et al. [6] | 5 attempts | Unclear | 0 of 6 questions | • No additional research data were provided. • No consequences for the risk of bias scores were therefore assigned. |
Chen et al. [84] | 3 attempts | Yes | 1 of 1 question | • Outcome assessors were blinded. This information changed the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias in measurement of outcomes’ from ‘No information’ to ‘Low’ risk of bias. |
Brisceno et al. [25] | 7 attempts | Yes | 6 of 6 questions | • Insertion torque was measured at complete insertion of the 8 mm implant length. This information was not sufficient to lower the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias in measurements of interventions’. • Personnel and outcome assessors were not blinded. This information changed the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias in measurement of outcomes’ from ‘No information’ to ‘Serious’ risk of bias. • The sample consisted of 23 implants with and 23 without root contact. This information changed the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias due to missing data’ from ‘Serious’ risk to ‘Moderate’ risk of bias. This information also permitted the calculation of various statistics and list them in a forest plot. |
Wilmes et al. [33] | 5 attempts | Yes | 2 of 6 questions | • Animals were 8–10 months old. Most of our questions were not answered by the contacted authors and no consequences were therefore applied. |
McEwan [32] | 2 attempts | Yes | 7 of 7 questions | • Animals were approximately the same age. Different screw types were randomly assigned to the mandibles. This information changed the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias due to confounding’ from ‘Moderate’ to ‘Low’ risk of bias. • Outcome assessors and personnel were not blinded. This information changed the risk of bias score for the domain ‘Bias in measurement of outcomes’ from ‘No information’ to ‘Serious’ risk of bias. |