Table 2.
OHAT Risk of Bias heat map for randomized controlled trials investigating tumor size in exercised rodents.
| Domains based on (18) | Tumor weight in gram | de Lima et al. (34) | de Lima et al. (35) | Faustino-Rocha et al. (36) | Salomão et al., (37) | Shewchuk et al. (38) | Tsai et al. (39) | Whittal and Parkhouse (40) | Whittal-Strange et al. (41) | Zhang et al. (42) | Tumor weight in volume | Almeida et al. (43) | Aveseh et al. (44) | Bacurau et al. (45) | Zhu et al. (46) | Tumor weight per animal | Gueritat et al. (47) | Steiner et al. (48) | Yan and Demars (24) | Westerlind et al. (25) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection bias | Q1a: Was the administered dose of exposure level adequately randomized? | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | |||
| Q1b: Was allocation to study groups adequately concealed? | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Performance Bias | Q2a: Were experimental conditions identical across study groups? | + | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | + | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
| Q2b: Were the research personnel and human subjects blinded to the study group? | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Attrition/Exclusion Bias | Q3: Were outcome data complete without attrition or exclusion from analysis? | – | – | ++ | – | – | ++ | ++ | ++ | – | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | – | ++ | ++ | – | |||
| Detection bias | Q4a: Can we be confident in the exposure characterization? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
| Q4b: Can we be confident in the outcome assessment? | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | ||||
| Selective Reporting Bias? | Q5: Were all measured outcomes reported? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
| Average score | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | ||||
| Other Bias | Were statistical methods appropriate? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Did researchers adhere to the study protocol? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
| Did the study design or analysis account for important confounding variables in experimental studies? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
Based on the work of Wikoff et al. (49); ++ definitely low risk of bias (dark green); + probably low risk of bias (light green); – probably high risk of bias (light red); – – definitely high risk of bias (dark red).