| Study |
Bias due to confounding |
Bias in the selection of participants in the study |
Bias in the classification of interventions |
Bias due to deviations from intended interventions |
Bias due to missing data |
Bias in the measurement of outcomes |
Bias in the selection of the reported result |
Overall bias |
| Forsberg and Hellsing, 1984 [10] |
Low: There were no obvious confounding factors that indicated a clear risk of bias. |
Low: The treatment was performed on 20 randomly selected patients, and this group was compared with a control group comprising 20 untreated patients matching the intervention group in terms of age, sex, and type of malocclusion. |
Low: There was an intervention group and a well-matched control group of untreated patients. |
Low: There was only an intervention group, and no deviation from the intended intervention was spotted. |
Low: The data were reasonably complete. |
Low: The measurements were made with a digital electronic measuring device to a precision of 0.1 mm or 0.1 degree. |
Low: The study is comparable to a well-performed randomized trial in this domain. |
LOW |
| Akarsu-Guven et al., 2010 [11] |
Low: There were no obvious confounding factors that indicated a clear risk of bias. |
Low: The start of the intervention and the follow-up were coordinated with the participants, who were chosen before the intervention began. |
Low: The intervention group was clearly defined. |
Low: Any deviations from the intended intervention reflected usual practice. |
Low: The data were reasonably complete. |
NI: The outcome assessor's identity and awareness of the intervention were unclear. |
Low: The ethics committee decision dated June 23, 2004, with the registration number LUT 04/30 was received from the Ethics Committee of Medical, Surgical, and Drug Research at Hacettepe University, and the outcomes mentioned in the protocol have been reported. |
NI |
| ni NI: no information |
