Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 1;13(5):609–624. doi: 10.32598/bcn.2021.1422.1

Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment in studies

Author/Year Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Bai et al., 2010 --- ---
Bradbury et al., 2002 --- --- ---
Caggiano et al., 2005
Cheng et al., 2015
Führmann et al., 2018
García-Alías et al., 2008 --- --- ---
García-Alías et al., 2009 --- --- ---
García-Alías et al., 2011 --- --- ---
Grosso et al., 2014 ---
Huang et al., 2006 --- --- ---
Ishikawa et al., 2015 --- --- --- ---
Janzadeh et al., 2017
Karimi-Abdolrezaee et al., 2010
Kim et al., 2006 --- ---
Lee et al., 2012 --- --- ---
Liu et al., 2018 --- --- ---
Mountney et al., 2013 ---
Ni et al., 2015 ---
Novotna et al., 2011 --- ---
Pan et al., 2018
Raspa et al., 2019 --- ---
Sarveazad et al., 2014
Sarveazad et al., 2017
Shinozaki et al., 2016 ---
Takeuchi et al., 2013 --- ---
Tom et al., 2009 --- --- ---
Wang et al., 2011a ---
Wang et al., 2011b ---
Xia et al., 2015 ---
Xia et al., 2017 ---
Xiong et al., 2016 --- ---
Yang et al., 2009 --- ---
Yoo et al., 2013 --- --- ---
Zhao et al., 2013 --- --- ---

Notes: ✓: Low risk; ---: High risk.

Items:
  • 1) Species;
  • 2) Designation of strain;
  • 3) Age/weight;
  • 4) Genetic background;
  • 5) Number of animals per group;
  • 6) Definition of control;
  • 7) Method of allocation to treatments;
  • 8) Severity of injury;
  • 9) Level of injury;
  • 10) Bladder expression;
  • 11) Using appropriate tests;
  • 12) Blindness of assessor;
  • 13) Description of statistical analysis;
  • 14) Regulation and ethics;
  • 15) Description of the reasons to exclude animals from the experiment during the study (attrition).