Table 2.

Individual risk of bias assessment using the methodological items for nonrandomized studies criteria.

Author, year (reference)	Clearly stated aim	Inclusion of consecutive patients	Prospective data collection	Endpoints appropriate to study aim	Unbiased assessment of study endpoint	Follow-up period appropriate to study aim	<5% loss to follow-up	Prospective calculation of study size	Adequate control group	Contemporary groups	Baseline equivalent groups	Adequate statistical analysis	Total score (%)	Risk of bias
Alexander et al., 20121	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	83.3%	Low
Birklein et al., 20144	2	1	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	79.2%	Low
Bruehl et al., 20028	2	1	2	2	0	2	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	56.3%	Moderate
Bruehl et al., 20169	2	1	2	2	2	2	1	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	75.0%	Low
De Boer et al., 201111	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	0	N/A	N/A	N/A	NA	75.0%	Low
De Mos et al., 200913	2	0	2	2	0	2	1	0	2	2	2	2	70.8%	Low
De Rooij et al., 200914	2	0	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	1	1	2	66.7%	Moderate
De Rooij et al., 201015	2	0	0	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	0	2	54.2%	Moderate
Dimova et al., 202018	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	75.0%	Low
Dirckx et al., 201519	2	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	0	2	58.3%	Moderate
Drummond et al., 201420	2	0	2	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	0	2	62.5%	Moderate
Drummond et al., 201821	2	0	2	2	1	2	2	1	NA	NA	NA	NA	75.0%	Low
Drummond et al., 201822	2	0	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	75.0%	Low
Eberle et al., 200923	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	83.3%	Low
Escolano-Lozano et al., 202125	2	1	2	2	0	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	70.8%	Low
Gierthmuhlen et al., 201226	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	1	2	70.8%	Low
Huge et al., 200830	2	2	2	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	79.2%	Low
Libon et al., 201038	2	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	62.5%	Moderate
Lunden et al., 202239	2	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	50.0%	Moderate
Van Rooijen et al., 201253	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	1	2	2	79.2%	Low
Van Roojen et al., 201351	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	75.0%	Low
Van Roojen et al.,201352	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	75.0%	Low
Vaneker et al., 200554	2	2	2	2	0	2	1	0	2	2	2	2	79.2%	Low
Varenna et al., 201755	2	2	0	2	2	2	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	62.5%	Moderate
Zyluk et al., 201357	1	2	0	1	2	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	37.5%	High