Table 4.
Results of the assessment of bias risk in animal studies
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhu 2017 | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Tao 2017 | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Wang 2017 | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | Y | N |
| Cosenza 2017 | U | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | Y | U | N |
| Wu 2019 | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | U | N |
| Zhou 2020 | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | U |
| Zavatti 2019 | U | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | U |
| Li 2020 | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | U | N |
| Zhang 2020 | U | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | U |
| He 2020 | U | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | Y | U | N |
| Xu 2020 | U | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Wang 2020 | Y | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | U | U |
| Rong 2020 | U | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | N |
| Woo 2020 | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | U |
| Wang 2020(2) | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | N |
| Tang 2021 | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U | Y | U | U |
| Hoda Fazaeli 2021 | Y | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | Y | Y | N |
| Jin 2021 | U | Y | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | N |
| Liu 2022 | U | Y | U | U | Y | U | U | Y | U | N |
| Li 2022 | Y | Y | U | U | Y | U | U | Y | U | N |
1. If the allocation sequence adequately generated and applied or not; 2. If the groups similar at baseline or were they adjusted for confounders in the analysis or not; 3. the allocation to the different groups adequately concealed during or not; 4. If the animals randomly housed during the experiment or not; 5.If the caregivers and/or investigators blinded or not; 6.If animals selected at random for outcome assessment or not; 7. the outcome assessor blinded or not; 8. incomplete outcome data adequately addressed or not; 9.reports of the study free of selective outcome reporting or not; 10. the study apparently free of other problems that could result in high risk of bias or not