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 |