Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 30;18:206. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0605-7

Table 2.

Quality assessment for included trials

Trial Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete outcome data Selective outcome reporting Other source of bias
participants personnel outcome assessors
FOSIDIAL 2006 [9] LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW
SAFIR 2014 [11] LOW UNCLEAR LOW LOW UNCLEAR LOW LOW LOW
Yilmaz 2010 [18] UNCLEAR UNCLEAR HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW
Philip 2003 [14] LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW
HDPAL 2014 [20] LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW
Suzuki 2008 [10] LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW
Takahashi 2006 [8] LOW LOW HIGH HIGH LOW LOW UNCLEAR UNCLEAR
OCTOPUS 2013 [19] UNCLEAR UNCLEAR HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW
Suzuki 2004 [15] LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW
Wang J [16] UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR LOW LOW UNCLEAR
Zhong H [17] UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR UNCLEAR LOW LOW UNCLEAR

Assessment of risk bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, low risk of bias was represented as “LOW” and high risk of bias was “HIGH”