Table 2.
Illustrates the quality of the analyzed studies according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized controlled trials ROBINS-I.
| References | Design | Confounding bias | Selection bias | Deviation from intended intervention | Missing data | Measurement in outcome | Selection of reported result | Classification of intervention | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ceccanti et al. (49) | PCS | ? | + | + | + | – | – | + | 2b |
| Spiegl et al. (50) | PCS | – | ? | + | – | + | + | + | 2b |
| Mor et al. (43) | RCS | – | ? | + | – | + | + | + | 2b |
| Interiano et al. (48) | PCS | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | 2b |
| Nerli et al. (42) | RCS | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | 2b |
| Wilde et al. (47) | PCS | ? | + | + | + | + | – | + | 2b |
| Cost et al. (37) | RCS | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Wang et al. (12) | RCS | + | + | + | + | + | ? | + | 2b |
| Cost et al. (36) | RCS | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | 2b |
| Kern et al. (41) | RCS | – | ? | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Cozzi et al. (39) | RCS | – | + | ? | – | – | + | – | 2b |
| Sanpakit et al. (40) | RCS | ? | + | – | – | + | – | – | 2b |
| Romão et al. (15) | RCS | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Cozzi et al. (46) | PCS | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | 2b |
| Szymik-Kantorowicz et al. (38) | RCS | ? | – | + | – | ? | – | + | 2b |
| Daw et al. (44) | PCS | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | 2b |
| Varlet et al. (45) | PCS | – | + | – | + | – | ? | – | 2b |
| Zani et al. (51) | RCS | ? | – | ? | – | + | + | – | 2b |
| Linni et al. (34) | RCS | + | ? | + | – | + | + | + | 2b |
| Duarte et al. (35) | RCS | – | ? | – | ? | + | – | – | 2b |
PCS, prospective cohort study; RCS, retrospective cohort study; –, high risk of bias; +, low risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias.