Table 2.
Individual risk of bias assessment for controlled randomized studies: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias factor among the selected studies.
| Quality analysis of randomized clinical studies | Nickeing 2010 | Pozzi 2014 | Tallarico 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is it clear in the study what is the “cause” and what’s the “effect” (i.e., there is no confusion about which variable comes first)? | y | y | y |
| Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? | u | y | y |
| Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? | n | y | y |
| Was there a control group? | y | y | y |
| Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the intervention/exposure? | y | y | y |
| Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed? | u | y | y |
| Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way? | u | y | y |
| Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? | y | y | y |
| Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | y | y | y |
| Overall appraisal: | 50% | 100% | 100% |
Seven domains were analyzed for each record, and final judgments were made by discussion between authors.
y yes, n no, u unclear.