Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 9;3(4):e002727. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727

Table 4.

Association between study characteristics and risk of bias

Characteristic All studies (n) Studies in high risk of bias in at least one domain number (%) p Value*
Year of publication 0.37
 Pre-2002 37 17 (46%)
 2002–2006 46 20 (44%)
 2007–2010 59 32 (54%)
Type of diabetes 0.11
 Type 1 9 3 (33%)
 Type 2 80 36 (45%)
 Both 34 16 (47%)
 Unclear 19 14 (74%)
Unit of allocation 0.24
 Patient 94 49 (52%)
 Cluster (eg, provider/clinic) 48 20 (42%)
Country/setting 0.62
 The USA or Canada 79 41 (52%)
 The UK or Western Europe 40 17 (43%)
 Other 23 11 (48%)
Journal impact factor 0.87
 Greater than 3 (median) 71 34 (47.9%)
 Less than 3 (median) 71 35 (49.3%)
Effective sample size 0.87
 Greater than 154 (median) 71 35 (49.3%)
 Less than 154 (median) 71 34 (47.9%)
Intervention type 0.17
 Multifaceted (featuring more than one QI strategy) 124 63 (51%)
 Single intervention 18 6 (33%)

*Comparing proportion of studies with at least one domain at high risk of bias against studies no domains at high risk of bias. For year of publication, Cochran-Armitage test for trend was conducted. For other study characteristics, χ2 (or Fisher's exact) tests for categorical and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous variables were used.

QI, quality improvement.