Table A1.
Quality assessment of included animal studies (SYRCLE tool) [24].
| Author, Year | Selection Bias | Performance Bias | Detection Bias | Attrition Bias 8 | Reporting Bias 9 | Other Bias 10 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence Generation 1 | Baseline 2 | Allocation Concealment 3 | Random Housing 4 | Blinding 5 | Random Outcome Assessment 6 | Blinding 7 | ||||
| Canene-Adams, 2009 [27] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Limpens, 2006 [28] | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Lindshield, 2010 [29] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Siler, 2004 [30] | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Wan, 2014 [31] | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
Studies are given a risk of bias of either “high” (disagreement with parameters), “low” (agreement with parameters), or “unclear” (unclear is parameters were met/unmet) based on the following parameters: 1 random allocation of animals; 2 similarity of baseline characteristics; 3 allocation blinding; 4 random housing distribution within the room; 5 investigator blinding; 6 random animal selection for outcome assessment; 7 outcome assessor blinding; 8 incomplete outcome data addressed; 9 free from selective outcome reporting; 10 free from any other potential sources of bias (e.g., contamination, funding sources, unit of analysis errors). No summary score is given to avoid assigning weights to each category.