|
Study
|
Study type
|
Risk of bias
|
Tool used
|
Comments
|
|
Rockborn and Messner [13]
|
Comparative study
|
Moderate
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Issues with allocation concealment and blinding are not clearly reported
|
|
Stein et al. [14]
|
Cohort study
|
Low
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Well-reported methodology, appropriate follow-up, and potential selection bias due to design
|
|
Nepple et al. [15]
|
Systematic review
|
Low
|
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool
|
Comprehensive search, appropriate inclusion criteria, addressed heterogeneity
|
|
Siebold et al. [16]
|
Case series
|
High
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Lack of control group, potential selection and performance bias, and clear outcome reporting
|
|
Paxton et al. [17]
|
Systematic review
|
Low
|
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool
|
A thorough review, defined inclusion criteria, and variability in study quality were noted
|
|
Johnson et al. [18]
|
Retrospective study
|
Moderate
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Retrospective design introduces recall and selection bias and clear outcome measures
|
|
Lee et al. [19]
|
Case series
|
High
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Lack of control group, potential selection bias, and clear outcome reporting
|
|
Petersen et al. [20]
|
Systematic review
|
Low
|
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool
|
Comprehensive review, rigorous methodology, addressed study variability
|
|
Noyes and Barber-Westin [21]
|
Prospective case series
|
Moderate
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Prospective design reduces bias, lack of control group, and potential selection bias
|
|
Westermann et al. [22]
|
Prospective cohort study
|
Low
|
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale
|
Well-designed, appropriate follow-up and outcome measures minimized selection bias
|
