Table 3. Risk of bias assessment for reviewed RCTs conducted in the U.S.
| Author/Year | Sample | Concealment of Allocation | Blinding | Intention to Treat Analysis | Retention Rate | Quality Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies targeting a single Asian ethnic-group | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Sun et al. 1996 | + | – | – | + | + | 3 |
| Liao et al. 2002 | + | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| Han et al. 2010 | + | – | – | + | + | 3 |
| Qi, et al. 2011 | + | + | – | – | + | 3 |
| Dirige et al. 2013 | + | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| Islam et al. 2013 | + | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| Wang & Page 2013 | + | – | – | – | – | 1 |
Note: + = yes, – = no. Sample: all sample represent Asians (+), subgroup analysis for Asians (–); Concealment of allocation: described the method used to conceal the allocation sequence (+), incomplete description (–); Blinding: investigator-blinded (+), no blinding (–); Intention to Treat Analysis: Intention to Treat Analysis was done (+), Intention to Treat Analysis was not done (–); Retention rate: ≥ 80% (+), < 80% (–); RTC study quality was ranked on a “yes” sum basis: 4-to 5=high quality; 2-to 3=moderate quality; 0-to 1= low quality.