Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 24;2023(10):CD014967. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014967.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 3.2 Arrythmias causing circulatory disturbance.

Study Bias
Randomisation process Deviations from intended interventions Missing outcome data Measurement of the outcome Selection of the reported results Overall
Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Painter 1999 Some concerns No information on allocation concealment, but baseline characteristics do not show any differences between the two groups, except in gender. Low risk of bias Though the personnel were aware of the intervention allocation, but there seems to be no deviations that arouse outside the trial context. Also all patients analysed as randomised. Low risk of bias Data reasonably complete for all the included patients Low risk of bias Being an objective outcome, it is unlikely that assessment of the outcome would be influenced by knowledge of allocation group, It was a double blinded RCT and hence the outcome assessors are blinded to allocation; EEG was used to diagnose abnormal activity Some concerns Trial protocol not available High risk of bias Some concerns in more than one domain