TABLE 3.
Risk of bias tables for all other controlled studies
| Reference (in reverse chronological order) | Study Groups Clearly Defined | Selection Bias Avoided/Excluded | Intervention Clearly Defined | Outcome Clearly Defined | Outcome Assessed Blind for Exposure | Withdrawal/Drop-out Rate Acceptable (<20%) | Selective Lost-to-Follow-up Excluded | Major Confounders/Prognostic Factors Identified and Controlled | Selective Reporting of Outcomes Ruled Out | Free from Commercial Influence | Total Score | Total Risk of Bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offloading devices | ||||||||||||
| Strakhova et al 201473 | + | + | + | ? | − | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | 4/10 | − |
| Agas et al 200674 | + | ? | + | + | − | ? | ? | ? | ? | − | 3/10 | − |
| Udovichenko et al 200675 | + | − | + | + | − | + | − | − | + | ? | 5/10 | − |
| Ha Van et al 200376 | + | − | + | + | − | + | + | − | + | − | 6/10 | + |
| Birke et al 200277* | + | − | + | ? | − | + | ? | + | + | ? | 5/10 | − |
| Black et al 199078 | ? | ? | + | − | − | + | + | ? | ? | ? | 3/10 | − |
| Footwear | ||||||||||||
| Viswanathan et al 200479 | ? | − | + | − | − | ? | ? | − | + | ? | 2/10 | − |
| Surgical offloading techniques | ||||||||||||
| Kalantar Motamedi et al 201780 | − | − | + | + | − | ? | − | − | − | + | 3/10 | − |
| Vanlerberghe et al 201481 | − | ? | + | − | − | + | + | ? | ? | + | 4/10 | − |
| Armstrong et al 201282 | + | ? | + | + | − | + | + | + | ? | ? | 6/10 | + |
| Armstrong et al 200583 | + | − | + | + | ? | ? | ? | − | ? | ? | 3/10 | − |
| Armstrong et al 200384 | + | − | − | + | ? | − | ? | − | ? | ? | 2/10 | − |
| Lin et al 200085 | + | − | + | + | ? | ? | − | − | ? | ? | 3/10 | − |
Note. +, yes criterion is met; −, no criterion is not met; ?, not reported or not clear. Total risk of bias: ++ very low risk of bias; +, low risk of bias; −, high risk of bias.
*
: This paper was included in both Offloading devices and Other offloading techniques categories.