Table 3.
ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment of observational studies
| Ref. | Confounding | Selection of participants | Classification of interventions | Deviations from interventions | Missing data | Measurement of outcomes | Reported result | Overall bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Baum et al[33], 2022 | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Grewal et al[34], 20223 | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Rosenberg et al[35], 2021 | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Rosero-Bixby[36], 2021 | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
| Rane et al[37], 2022 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Low |
| Chemaitelly et al[38], 2021 | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Lytras et al[39], 2022 | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
| Ranzani et al[40], 2022 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
Low risk: Comparable to a well-performed randomised trial.
Moderate risk: Sound for a non-randomised study but cannot be compared to a well performed randomised trial.
Serious risk: Study has some important problems.
Critical risk: Study is too problematic to provide any useful evidence.