Table 2:
Results of assessment of the 22 reports for risk of bias*
| Study | Sequence generation† | Allocation concealment‡ | Blinding§ | Incomplete outcome data¶ | Selective outcome reporting** |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abete et al.6 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Abeysekara et al.36†† | Low | Low | High | Low | Low |
| Anderson et al.22 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Anderson et al.17 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Belski et al.23 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Cobiac et al.24 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Duane et al.7 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Finley et al.25 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Gormley et al.37 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Gravel et al.26 | Low | Low | Low | High | Low |
| Hermsdorff et al.8 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Hodgson et al.33 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Jenkins et al.35 | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Jimenez-Cruz et al.34 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Mackay et al.27 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Marinangeli et al.38 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Pittaway et al.28 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Pittaway et al.29 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Shams et al.30 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Winham et al.31 | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Winham et al.20 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Zhang et al.32 | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool19 was used to assess the risk of bias for each study. High risk = methodologic flaw in study design was likely to have affected the true outcome, low risk = the effect of the study’s methodologic flaw was deemed inconsequential to the true outcome, unclear risk = insufficient information was given to assess risk.
Assessed the randomization method and whether it would produce comparable groups.
Assessed whether investigators could tell to which treatment participants were going to be randomly allocated.
Assessed whether investigators and/or participants were aware of group allocation.
Assessed whether missing outcome data, including loss to follow-up and exclusion from analysis, may have affected the true outcome.
Assessed whether investigators pre-registered the trial or specified primary and secondary outcomes, or both.
The results of this trial may have been influenced by another potential source of bias: participants in the dietary pulse arm were given both food and dietary advice throughout the study, whereas participants in the control arm were simply told to keep following their usual dietary habits.