Table 3.
Risk of bias in individual studies.
| Study | Randomization | Allocation concealment | Blinding of the surgeon | Blinding of the outcome assessor | Incomplete outcome data | Selective outcome reporting | Other source of bias | Overall risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu et al. (2015) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | High (unclear if all animals and defects were evaluated at the completion of the follow‐up) | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | High |
| Hao et al. (2014b) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | High (unclear if all defects were evaluated at the completion of the follow‐up) | Low | High (unclear how 48 defects in eight animals were equally divided at 3 observing time points, given that no indication is given that the surgeries were performed at different moments) | High |
| Park et al. (2014) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | unclear (no information provided) | unclear (no information provided) | Low | High (not all of the study's prespecified primary outcomes have been reported) | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | High |
| Yun et al. (2014) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Low | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Han et al. (2013) | Unclear “each defect was randomly assigned” | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Low | Low | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Ribeiro et al. (2012) | Low “randomization was performed according to a computer‐generated code” | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Low | Low | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Zou et al. (2012) | Unclear “defects were generated and randomly allocated” | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (number of defects analyzed at the completion of the follow‐up interval not clearly stated) | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Wang et al. (2011) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Low | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Kim et al. (2009) | Unclear “were randomly assigned to the three prepared defects” | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Low | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation) | Unclear |
| Ito et al. (2006) | Unclear “selection of the treatments and localization was random” | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (no information provided) | Unclear (number of defects excluded from the final analysis not stated) | Low | Unclear (no sample size calculation; unclear description of the defect model) | Unclear |