Table 2.
Risk of bias assessment.
| Study | Rosenbaum et al. (2015a,b) | Hall et al. (2020) | Goldstein et al. (2018) | van der Kolk et al. (2014) | Mitchell et al. (2014) | Reinhardt et al. (2018) | Whitworth et al. (2019a) | Whitworth et al. (2019b) | Powers et al. (2015) | Fetzner and Asmundson (2015) | Gelkopf et al. (2013) | Kim et al. (2013) | Johnson et al. (2018) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1 | |||||||||||||
| Domain 2 | |||||||||||||
| Domain 3 | |||||||||||||
| Domain 4 | |||||||||||||
| Domain 5 | |||||||||||||
| Overall RoB | Some concerns | Low risk | Some concern | High risk | High risk | High riak | High risk | Some concerns | High risk | Some concerns | High risk | Some concerns | High risk |
Key Domain 1: Bias arising from the randomization process. Domain 2: Bias due to deviations from intended interventions (effect of allocation to intervention). Domain 3: Bias due to missing outcome data. Domain 4: Bias in measurement of the outcome. Domain 5: Bias in selection of the reported result. 
Low risk. 
Some concerns. 
High risk.