5. Risk of bias ‐ Isaac 2005.
Domain | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Bias due to confounding | Moderate risk | The study did not take into account the possibility of potential confounding effects as a result of media publicity which could have promoted the jump site |
Bias in selection of participants/data | Low risk | The study assessed interventions that were aimed at the general population, therefore all individuals who would have been eligible to take part in the study were included |
Bias in classification of interventions | Low risk | Intervention status is well defined |
Bias due to deviations from intended interventions | Low risk | There were no deviations from the intended interventions that were likely to impact on the outcome |
Bias due to missing data | Low risk | Data were reasonably complete |
Bias in measurement of outcomes | Low risk | The methods of outcome assessment were comparable across intervention periods |
Bias in selection of reported result | Unclear risk | No access to study protocols for this study therefore it is difficult to assess this domain |
Low risk of bias: the study is comparable to a well‐performed randomised trial with regard to this domain. Moderate risk of bias: the study is sound for a non‐randomised study with regard to this domain but cannot be considered comparable to a well‐performed randomised trial. Unclear risk of bias: too few details are available to make a judgement of ‘critical’, 'serious', 'moderate', or ‘low’ risk