Table 5.

Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool

Authors (year, country)	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding (participants and personnel)	Blinding outcome assessors	Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting
Allen et al36 (2019, USA)
Andereck et al37 (2019, USA)
Arora et al38 (2019, USA)
Bourdeaux et al39 (2014, UK)
Buntinx et al40 (1993, Belgium)
Chiu et al41 (2018, USA)
Delgado et al42 (2018, USA)
Hemkens et al43 (2017, Switzerland)
Hempel et al44 (2014, USA)
Hsiang et al45 (2019, USA)
Kim et al46 (2018, USA)
Kullgren et al47 (2018, USA)
Lewis et al48 (2019, UK)
Meeker et al49 (2014, USA)
Meeker et al50 (2016, USA)
Nguyen and Davis51 (2019, USA)
O’Reilly-Shah et al52 (2018, USA)
Olson et al53 (2015, USA)
Orloski et al54 (2019, USA)
Parrino55 (1989, USA)
Patel et al58 (2014, USA)
Patel et al73 (2016, USA)
Patel et al57 (2016, USA)
Patel et al56 (2017, USA)
Patel et al59 (2018, USA)
Persell et al60 (2016, USA)
Ryskina et al61 (2018, USA)
Sacarny et al20 (2018, USA)
Sedrak et al62 (2017, USA)
Sharma et al63 (2019, USA)
Shively et al64 (2020, USA)
Srinivasan et al65 (2020, USA)
Suffoletto and Landau66 (2019, USA)
Szilagyi et al67 (2014, USA)
Trent et al68 (2018, USA)
Wigder et al69 (1999, USA)
Winickoff et al70 (1984, USA)	First two studies: Third study:	First two studies: Third study:	First two studies: Third study:
Zivin et al71 (2019, USA)
Zwank et al72 (2017, USA)

indicates low risk of bias, indicates high risk of bias, and indicates unclear risk of bias. See 34 for a full description of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.