Table 2.
Quality criteria and study risk of bias assessment
| Reference | Was randomisation carried out appropriately? | Was the concealment of treatment allocation adequate? | Were the care providers, participants and outcome assessors blind to treatment allocation? | Were the groups similar at the onset of the study in terms of prognostic factors, for example, severity of the disease? | Were there any unexpected imbalances in dropouts between the groups? If so, were they explained or adjusted for? | Is there any evidence to suggest that the authors measured more outcomes than they reported? | Did the analysis include an ITT analysis? If so, was this appropriate? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bentley (2008, unpublished results) | L | L | L | L | L? | L | L |
| Berggren et al. ( 5 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | H |
| Cáceres et al. ( 23 ) | L | L | L | L | H | Y | H |
| Cazzola et al. ( 20 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| de Vrese et al. ( 6 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | H |
| Guillemard et al. ( 24 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Guillemard et al. ( 25 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Hatakka (2007, unpublished results) and Hatakka et al. ( 18 ) | L | L | L? | L? | L | L | H |
| Hojsak et al. ( 28 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Hojsak et al. ( 29 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Kloster et al. ( 27 ) | L | L? | L? | L | L | L | H |
| Kumpu et al. ( 19 ) | L | L | L? | L? | ? | L | H |
| Leyer et al. ( 7 ) | L | L | L? | L | L | L | L |
| Merenstein et al. ( 21 ) | L | L | L | L | L? | L | L |
| Niborski et al. ( 14 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Prodeus et al. ( 26 ) | L | L | L | L? | L | L | L |
| Smith et al. ( 22 ) | L | L | L | L | H | L | H |
| Tiollier et al. ( 15 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | L |
| Tubelius et al. ( 16 ) | L | L | L | L | L | L | H |
| Turchet et al. ( 17 ) | L | L? | H | L? | H | L | L |
ITT, intention-to-treat; L, low risk; L?, low risk with some areas of uncertainty; H, high risk; ?, unclear risk.