Table 2.
Risk of bias assessment of non-randomised studies
| Arantxa Colchero et al36 | Fatti et al43 | Firestones et al14 | Futterman et al38 | Ramakrishnan et al44 | Souverein et al39 | Wirtz et al40 | USAID31 | |
| Assessment domain | Judgement | |||||||
| Bias due to confounding | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | Serious | Low | Moderate | Low |
| Bias in selection of participants into the study | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias in classification of interventions | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias due to deviations from intended interventions | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low |
| Bias due to missing data | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Serious | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
| Bias in measurement of outcomes | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bias in selection of the reported result | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Overall bias | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Serious | Serious | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
USAID, United States Agency for International Development.