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

Risk of bias for analysis 9.4 Neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months' corrected age.

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
Saxena 2016 Low risk of bias Allocation concealed, sequence generation random and baseline characteristics does not reveal any imbalance between the two groups. Low risk of bias Double‐blinded study and neither the participants nor the treating physicians were aware of the allocation. Low risk of bias Though many of the enrolled patients were lost to follow up, it was balanced between the two groups. Hence, it seems that the result is not biased as reasons for lost to follow up does not differ significantly between the groups. Low risk of bias It was a double blinded RCT and hence the outcome assessors are blinded to allocation Low risk of bias Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. Low risk of bias Low risk across all domains