| Badiee et al. (2014) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The authors only mentioned that participants were randomly selected, but did not report the details of random sequence generation and allocation concealment. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the blinding of participants and personnel is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | The number of participants pre‐intervention and postintervention was consistent. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Coşkun and Günay (2020) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘The premature infants were selected by random sampling method. After the names of the premature infants who were written and put in an envelope, they were divided into the kangaroo care group and standard care group.’ |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the blinding of participants and personnel is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | The number of participants and the reason of loss follow‐up were clarified. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Feldman et al. (2014) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘53 mother–infant dyads were randomly selected…’. But this article did not report the details of random sequence generation and allocation concealment. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the blinding of participants and personnel is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Unclear risk | The number of participants in the results was not reported. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | The outcome measure parenting stress was not reported in results. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Lai et al. (2006) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘Permuted block randomization with sealed envelopes stratified ongender was used to assign participants to either thetreatment or control group’. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the blinding of participants and personnel is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | The number of participants pre‐and post‐intervention was consistent. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Miles et al. (2006) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The authors only mentioned that participants were randomly selected, but did not report the details of random sequence generation and allocation concealment. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘… not require nursing staff to provide care for the same infant … have served to minimise any possibility of bias towards either STS or …’ However, whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting while blinding of participants is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | High risk | The number of people lost to follow‐up in the two groups was unbalanced. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Norouzi et al. (2013) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘1. … participants were randomly allocated into…; 2.The drawings were prepared by a different person who was blind to the order of group assignment.’ |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘Cards of three numbers indicating group assignment were randomly placed in opaque sealed envelopes’. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting while blinding of participants is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | The number of participants pre‐and post‐intervention was consistent. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Samra et al. (2015) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘A simple randomisation scheme using opaque sequentially numbered envelopes to conceal upcoming subject allocation was used. … a study assistant who was not involved in recruitment developed an equal number of study cards … and placed one card inside each opaque envelope before sealing it.’ |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | High risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘Blinding was not possible for the intervention.’ |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | High risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the subjects were not blinded. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | High risk | The number of people lost to follow‐up in the intervention group and control group was unbalanced. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |
| Wang et al. (2020) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quoting sentences from the article ‘Participants were divided into intervention group and control group using random number table’. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | This detail was not referred to. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Whether the participants were blinded was not explained in the article. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Outcome measures were self‐reporting, while the blinding of participants and personnel is not clear. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | The number of participants and the reason of loss follow‐up were clarified. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The expected outcome indicators were reported. |
| Other bias | Low risk | |