Table 4.
Study quality
| Authors and year | Study design | Selection bias | Performance bias | Attrition bias | Detection bias | LOE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schinkel et al. [48] | RCS | +/− | +/− | a | + | IIc |
| Kerwin et al. [26] | RCS | + | − | a | + | IIc |
| Rath et al. [45] | RCS | + | +/− | + | + | IIc |
| Chipman et al. [8] | RCS | +/− | − | a | + | IIc |
| Dai et al. [11] | RCS | + | +/− | + | + | IIc |
| McKinley et al. [30] | PCS | +/− | − | +/− | +/− | IIc |
| Croce et al. [10] | RCS | + | − | a | + | IIc |
| Gaebler et al. [19] | RCS | + | + | +/− | + | IIc |
| McLain [32] | PCS | + | + | a | + | IIc |
| Schlegel et al. [49] | RCS | +/− | + | − | + | IIc |
RCS Retrospective comparative study, PCS prospective comparative study, (+) low risk of bias, (+/−) moderate risk of bias doubtful, (−) high risk of bias
aAttrition bias not determined, follow up was limited to hospital discharge