Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 18;15(11):e49012. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49012

Table 4. Risk of bias (noncomparative studies).

Authors  A clearly stated aim Inclusion of consecutive patients Prospective collection of data Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study   Loss to follow up less than 5% Prospective calculation of the study size Score out of 16
Jeremy M. Rawlins et al., 2007 [6]     2   2   1   0   0   2   0   0   7
Lucy Ann Wibbenmeyer et al., 2003 [7]     2   1   1   0   0   0   0   2   6
Shelly Abramowicz et al., 2019 [8]     2   2   2   0   0   1   2   2   11
Ember Lee Ewings et al., 2008 [9]     2   2   0   0   0   2   0   0   6
J. P. Tourtier et al., 2010 [10]     2   2                  2                  0                  0   0   0   1   7
Douglas Cowan et al., 2013 [11]     2   2                  2   0                  0   1   N/A   0   9
Jason Wasiak et al., 2009 [12]     2   N/A   0   0   0   N/A   N/A   0   2
Ayhan Saritas et al., 2013 [13]     2   1   2   0   0   N/A   N/A   0   5
Miguel M. Glatstein et al., 2013 [14]     2   2   2   0   0   N/A   N/A   2   8
Kevin M. Creamer et al., 2008 [26]   2 1 0 2 2 0 N/A 0                   7
Ahmet Guzel et al., 2009 [25]   2 0 0 2 2 0 N/A 0 6
Ceri Elisabeth Battle et al., 2016 [22]   2 1 0 2 0 N/A N/A 0 5
Thomas D. Kirsch et al., 1996 [15]     2   2   0   1   0   0   N/A   N/A            5
Sammy Othman et al., 2020 [16]     2   2   0   2   2   N/A   N/A   2   10
L. G. Yamamoto et al., 1992 [19]     2   1   2   0   0   2   N/A   1   8
Rebecca A. McCormack et al., 2003 [21]     2   2   2   1   0   N/A   N/A   N/A   7