Table 3.
Risk for bias in studies comparing the outcomes of percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in the management of liver abscess
| Studies | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Blinding of outcome assessment | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajak et al.17 | Uncertain | High risk | Uncertain | Uncertain | High risk | High risk |
| Yu et al.18 | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Zerem & Hadzic19 | Low risk | Low risk | Uncertain | Uncertain | High risk | High risk |
| Singh et al.20 | Low risk | Low risk | Uncertain | Uncertain | Low risk | Low risk |
| Singh et al.21 | Low risk | Low risk | Uncertain | Uncertain | Low risk | High risk |
Risk for bias was classified as low, uncertain or high. The detail of each grade is referred to in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.15