Table 2.
Risk of Bias Assessment
| |
Selection bias/confounding |
Performance ias |
Attrition bias |
Detection bias |
Reporting bias |
Information bias |
Highest score OB1 | Highest score OB2 | Highest score OB3 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study ID | OB1 | OB2 | OB3 | OB1 | OB2 | OB3 | OB2 | OB3 | OB2 | OB3 | OB1 | OB2 | OB3 | OB1 | OB2 | OB3 | |||
| Alali (2013) |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
M |
| Andriessen (2011) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Biersteker (2012) |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
| Bulger (2002) |
L |
- |
L |
L |
L |
M |
- |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
M |
| Fakhry (2004) |
L |
- |
H |
L |
- |
H |
- |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
H |
| Farahvar (2012) |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
M |
| Franschman (2012) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Griesdale (2010) |
L |
M |
M |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
M |
| Harr (2011) |
L |
M |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
- |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
M |
- |
| Härtl (2006) |
H |
H |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
H |
H |
M |
| Haydon (2013) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Heskestad (2008) |
L |
H |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
- |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
H |
- |
| Mauritz (2008) |
L |
H |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
H |
M |
| Mooney (2011) |
H |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
H |
- |
- |
| Prowse (2009) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Ravindran (2007) |
H |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
H |
- |
- |
| Rognas (2013) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Rusnak (2007) |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
M |
- |
H |
- |
L |
L |
- |
L |
L |
- |
M |
L |
- |
H |
| Shafi (2014) |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
L |
M |
L |
L |
M |
| Shafi-b (2014) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Shravat (2006) |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
L |
- |
- |
| Talving (2013) | L | L | L | L | L | M | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | M |
Table represents the risk of bias for the three objectives.
OB1, objective 1 (assessing the amount of adherence); OB2, objective 2 (assessing factors influencing adherence); OB3, objective 3 (assessing the association between adherence and outcome); L, low risk of bias; M, moderate risk of bias; H, high risk of bias.