Table 3.
Cochrane assessment of risk of bias.
| Author, Year, Country | Sequence Generation 1 | Allocation Concealment 2 | Blinding of Participants and Personnel 3 | Blinding of Outcome Assessment 4 | Incomplete Outcome Data 5 | Overall Risk-of-Bias Judgement 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arevström et al., 2019, Sweden [29] | Low risk | Unclear | High risk | Low risk | High risk | High risk of bias |
| Asgary et al., 2016, Iran [30] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Basu et al., 2014, USA [31] | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Bowtell et al., 2017, United Kingdom [32] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Unsure | Some concerns |
| Chan et al., 2021, China [33] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Chew et al., 2019, USA [34] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Curtis et al., 2019, United Kingdom [35] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Davinelli et al., 2015, Italy [36] | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| deLiz et al., 2020, Brazil [37] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Ekhlasi et al., 2015, Iran [38] | Unsure | Unsure | High risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk of bias |
| Espinosa-Moncada et al., 2018, Colombia [39] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Unsure | Unsure | Some concerns |
| Hsia et al., 2020, USA [40] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Hurst et al., 2020, New Zealand [41] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unsure | High risk | Some concerns |
| Hutchison et al., 2016, USA [42] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Johnson et al., 2015, USA [43] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Khan et al., 2014, Scotland [44] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Kim et al., 2018, USA [45] | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Marín-Echeverri et al., 2018, Colombia [46] | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Unsure | Some concerns |
| McAnulty et al., 2014, USA [47] | Low risk | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Some concerns |
| Mohammed et al., 2016, Iraq [48] | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Nilsson et al., 2017, Sweden [49] | Low risk | Unsure | High risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk of bias |
| Paquette et al., 2017, Canada [50] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Petrovic et al., 2016, Serbia [51] | Unsure | Unsure | Low risk | Low risk | Unsure | Some concerns |
| Riso et al., 2013, Italy [52] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Sangild et al., 2023, Denmark [53] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk of bias |
| Stote et al., 2017, Canada [54] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Terrazas et al., 2020, Brazil [55] | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Unsure | Some concerns |
| Xie et al., 2017, USA [56] | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Unsure | Low risk | Some concerns |
1 Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups. 2 Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrollment. 3 Describe all measures used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant re-ceived. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective. 4 Describe all measures used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was ef-fective. 5 Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomized participants), reasons for attri-tion/exclusions where reported, and any re-inclusions in analyses performed by the review au-thors. 6 Overall risk-of-bias judgement criteria, low risk: the study is judged to be at a low risk of bias for all five domains; some concerns: the study is judged to raise some concerns in at least one domain for the result, but not to be at high risk of bias for any domain; and high risk: the study is judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain for the result, or not to be at high risk of bias for any domain or the study is judged to have some concerns for multiple domains in a way that substancially lowers confidence in the result.