Table 3.
Evaluation of risk of bias in the 22 included studies based on the seven items in the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool
study | random sequence generation | allocation concealment | blinding of participants and providers | blinding of outcome assessment | incomplete outcome data | selective reporting | other biasesa | overall risk of biasb |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chanpatana 1999[11] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Goswami 2003[17] | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Yang 2005[27] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Ding 2007[13] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Cai 2008[10] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Braga 2009[9] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Jiang 2009[18] | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Zhou 2009[31] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Liu 2010a[21] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Liu 2010b[22] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Ding 2011[14] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Du 2011[15] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Duo 2011[16] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Jiang 2011[19] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Yang 2011[28] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Chen 2012[29] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Wang 2012[32] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Zhang 2012[30] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Chen 2013[12 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Jiang 2013[20] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Wang 2013[26] | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
Petrides 2015[23] | Unclear | Unclear | High | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | High |
kappac | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 |
a Other biases considered include including study-specific biases or concerns about fraudulent results
b If any of seven items are coded high-risk of bias the overall study is classified as high-risk, if all seven items are coded as low-risk the overall study is classified as low-risk; all other studies (i.e., those with some items coded ‘unclear’ and no items coded as high-risk) are classified as ‘unclear’
c Weighted kappa values for inter-rater reliability of the two independent coders who assessed each item for the 23 studies