Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 27;3:e1364. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1364

Table 1. Study characteristics.

First author Year of publication Study sizea Risk of bias analysis— evidence of Risk of bias Medical specialty
Randomisation >1 indep rater
Al-Benna 2009 113 1 0 0 Surgery
Awrey 2010 900 1 1 1 Surgery
Buchan 2003 200 1 1 1 Ophthalmology
Bujize 2011 2011 1 1 1 Orthopedics
Davids 2010 200 1 1 1 Orthopedics
De Lacey 1985 300 1 1 1 General medicine, mixed specialties
Eichorn 1987 150 1 1 1 Public health
Evans 1990 137 1 1 1 Surgery, gynecology
Fenton 2000 153 1 0 0 Otorhinolaryngology
George 1994 239 1 0 0 Dermatology
Goldberg 1993 145 1 1 1 Emergency medicine
Gosling 2004 320 1 0 0 Manual therapy
Gupta 2005 176 0 1 0 Pediatrics
Hansen 1994 95 1 0 0 Radiology
Hobma 1992 99 1 0 0 General medicine
Lawson 1999 147 1 0 0 Psychiatry
Lee 1999 200 1 0 0 Dermatology
Lowry 1985 61 0 0 0 General medicine
Lukic 2004 199 1 1 1 Anatomy
Luo 2013 249 1 1 1 Orthopedics
Mertens 2011 50 1 1 1 General medicine
Neihouse 1989 99 1 0 0 Pharmacology
Pieters 2001 95 1 1 1 Psychiatry
Puttermann 1992 120 1 0 0 General medicine
Reddy 2008 255 1 1 1 Surgery
Schulmeister 1998 180 1 1 1 Nursing
Singh 2009 46 1 0 0 Dermatology
Warren 1997 382 0 0 0 Infectious diseases

Notes.

Risk of bias

0
high
1
low
a

Number of references/quotations as used for main analysis (quotation error rates as presented in the paper and using unrestricted reference based quotation error data as default if more than one approach was reported).