Table 2.
Assessment methodologic quality
| Random-sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding | Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Free of selective reporting/other bias | Assessment of risk of bias across study | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kudenchuk et al. [11] |
Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported |
Lack of details reported |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Skrifvars et al. [12] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Fatovich et al. [15] |
Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported |
Adequately performed |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Thel et al. [16] |
Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported |
Performed according to the text, lack of details reported |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Allegra et al. [14] |
Random sequence generated by computer |
Performed according to the text, lack of details reported |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Hassan et al. [13] |
Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported |
Sealed envelopes were used for allocation, adequate |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Harrision [17] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design |
No blinding |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Herlitz et al. [18] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Dorian et al. [19] |
Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported |
Adequately performed |
Adequate |
Yes |
Yes |
Low risk of bias |
| Rea et al. [20] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Amino et al. [21] |
Randomized controlled design, but lack of detailed information, unclear risk of allocation bias was considered |
Blinding was performed, but lack of details |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear risk of bias |
|
| Igarashi et al. [24] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Tahara et al. [23] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Shiga et al. [22] |
High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the prospective observational design |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
High risk of bias |
|
| Nowak et al. [26] |
Randomization was performed, but lack of details was found |
Lack of details reported |
Double-blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear risk of bias |
| Olson et al. [25] |
Randomization was performed, but lack of details was found |
Lack of details reported |
No blinding was performed |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear risk of bias |
| Kovoor et al. [27] | Quasi-randomization was considered, according to the text | Adequately performed according to the text, lack of details | Double-blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |