Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun 21;47(6):2754–2768. doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03421-z

Table 2.

Assessment of risk of bias of the randomised trials using the cochrane collaboration’s tool

First author Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement
Sterodimas et al. (2011) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No information regarding the randomisation technique is mentioned
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk No allocation concealment is done.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Unclear risk No blinding of participants mentioned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk No information given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk All outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk The study protocol is available and all data is reported in the pre-specified way.
Other bias Unclear risk Similar baseline characteristics not mentioned
Koh et al. (2012) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No information regarding randomisation technique is mentioned
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information regarding allocation concealment is mentioned.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Unclear risk No information given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk No information given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Standard deviation for volume differences is missing
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Study protocol available with no missing outcomes.
Other bias Low risk Similar baseline characteristics
Kølle et al. (2013) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk allocation sequence was generated using an online randomisation generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Allocation was concealed by a person unrelated to the trial management group and monitored by the Good Clinical Practice unit
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Low risk “The participants, study personnel, and outcome assessors were all blinded to treatment allocation, and blinding was maintained until all data had been analysed”.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Low risk “The participants, study personnel, and outcome assessors were all blinded to treatment allocation, and blinding was maintained until all data had been analysed”.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk All outcome data is reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Study protocol is available in the appendix
Other bias Low risk No further biases detected
Tanikawa et al. (2013) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random number generator used
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information given
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Low risk Double blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear Risk No information given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No outcome data was missing
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Study protocol available with no missing outcomes
Other bias Low risk No further biases detected
Malik et al. (2019) Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Patients were selected using envelope method
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No information given regarding concealement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Low risk Patients were divided randomly using computerized methods
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear risk No mention of how outcomes were assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk All outcome data was reported and no patients lost to follow up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Study protocol available with no missing outcomes
Other bias Unclear risk No mention of baseline characteristics between the patients