Table 13.
The risk of bias and study quality for each colic review
| Colic | AMSTAR-2 | ROBIS |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple CAM therapies | ||
| Perry 2011 [29] | Low | Low |
| Bruyas-Bertholon 2012 [30] | CL | High |
| Harb 2016 [31] | CL | High |
| Gutierrez-Castrellon 2017 [32] | CL | High |
| Manipulation therapies | ||
| Dobson 2012 [33] | High | Low |
| Gleberzon 2012 [34] | CL | High |
| Carnes 2017 [35] | CL | Unclear |
| Acupuncture | ||
| Skejeie 2018 [36] | Low | Unclear |
| Herbal medicine | ||
| Anheyer 2017 [37] | CL | High |
| Probiotics | ||
| Sung 2013 [38] | CL | Unclear |
| Anabrees 2013 [39] | Low | Low |
| Urbanska 2014 [40] | CL | High |
| Xu 2015 [41] | CL | Low |
| Schreck Bird 2017 [42] | CL | High |
| Dryl 2018 [43] | CL | High |
| Sung 2018 [44] | LOW | Unclear |
When AMSTAR-2 is low, this should correspond to ROBIS being of high risk of bias. The italicised reviews show discrepancies between the overall rating of quality/bias