Skip to main content
. 2022 May 19;2022(5):CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6

Risk of bias for analysis 3.6 Clinical pregnancy rate per couple: TLS (with algorithm) cleavage stage versus TLS (with algorithm) blastocyst stage.

Study Bias
Randomisation process Deviations from intended interventions Missing outcome data Measurement of the outcome Selection of the reported results Overall
Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Kaser 2017 Low risk of bias Allocation sequence was random and concealed Some concerns Participants, carers and people delivering the intervention were probably aware of their assigned intervention. There were only few with deviation from the intended protocols, and no imbalance was found. All randomised women were analysed. Low risk of bias The observed number of events is much greater than the number of participants with missing outcome data. Low risk of bias Method of measuring the outcome was not described. However, it is unlikely that it was not different between groups and it is an objective outcome that is unlikely to be influenced by the knowledge of the assigned intervention. Low risk of bias Quote:"NCT02218255" Some concerns There are some concerns of risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions.