Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 13;11:405–416. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S156475

Table 1.

ROBINS-I tool for bias assessment

Author, year Selection of participants Classification of exposure Classification of missing data Bias in measurement of outcomes Bias in selection of reported result Total
Case–control studies
 Motzkus-Feagans et al, 201119 3 2 4 3 n/a 12
 Naggie et al, 201124 3 2 4 3 n/a 12
 Nseir et al, 201325 2 2 3 3 n/a 10
 Elashery et al, 201427 1 2 3 2 n/a 8
 Kumarappa et al, 201226 2 1 3 1 n/a 7
 Ewelukwa et al, 201429 1 1 3 2 n/a 7
Cohort studies
 McGuire et al, 200918 1 1 3 2 n/a 7
 Tartof et al, 201528 2 2 3 3 n/a 10
Notes: Scoring criteria (maximum score 15):
  • • Bias in selection of participants into the study
    • • Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
    • • Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
    • • Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
  • • Bias in classification of intervention/exposure
    • • Were intervention/exposure groups clearly defined?
    • • Was the information used to define intervention/exposure group recorded at the start of the intervention/exposure?
    • • Could classification of intervention/exposure status have been affected by knowledge of the outcome or risk of the outcome?
  • • Bias due to missing data
    • • Were outcome data available for all, or nearly all, participants?
    • • Were no participants excluded due to missing data on intervention status?
    • • Were participants excluded due to missing data on any variables that was required for analysis?
    • • Are the proportion of participants and reasons for missing data similar across interventions?
    • • Is there evidence that results were robust due to the presence of missing data?
  • • Bias in measurement of outcomes
    • • Could the outcome measure have been influenced by knowledge of the intervention/exposure received?
    • • Were outcome assessors aware of the intervention/exposure received by study participants?
    • • Were the methods of outcome assessment comparable across intervention/exposure groups?
    • • Were any systematic errors in measurement of the outcome related to intervention/exposure received?
  • • Bias in measurement of outcomes
    • • Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple outcome “measurements” within the outcome domain?
    • • Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from multiple “analyses” of the intervention–outcome relationship?
    • • Is the reported effect estimate likely to be selected, on the basis of the results, from different “subgroups”?

Abbreviation: n/a, not available.