Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 11;2022(3):CD013130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013130.pub2

6. Summary of risk of bias assessments for non‐randomised studies ‐ outcome: hospital length of stay.

Study Bias due to confounding Bias in selection of participants into the study Bias in classification of interventions Bias due to deviations from the intended intervention Bias due to missing data Bias in measurement of outcomes Bias in selection of the reported result Overall risk of bias
Han 2017 Serious No information Serious No information  Low No information  Low Serious
Rationale for judgement Missing information on most confounders ‐ unclear if comparable between study groups
  No information provided ‐ cannot determine from article.
  Very few details provided on intervention groups and how group assignment took place: “divided into two groups on the basis of whether plasma exchange was performed after admission”.
  Unable to assess ‐ no details provided in study text
  Data reported on hospital length of stay for each participant in supplementary table. Information about outcome assessors and whether they were blinded was not provided.
  Individual patient data and outcomes provided in supplementary material. We assessed the study as at serious risk of bias in at least one domain, but not at critical risk of bias in any domain.
 
Jagadeesan 2013
  Serious Low Moderate No information Low Serious Moderate Serious
 
Rationale for judgement Missing information on some confounders ‐ unclear if comparable between study groups Consecutively diagnosed patients during the study period were included in the study. Little information provided on how intervention assignment took place, other than alternate allocation. Unable to assess ‐ no details provided in text Data were available for all participants. Concerns due to non‐blinding: evaluations and outcome measurement could have been influenced by knowledge of treatment allocation No prespecified analysis plan was reported as finalised before unblinded data were available for analysis. We assessed the study as at serious risk of bias in at least one domain, but not at critical risk of bias in any domain.