Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 6;2023(1):CD013778. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013778.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 2.9 Functional exercise capacity: Wmax (watt).

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
Hill 2006 Some concerns No information about allocation concealment. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation.  Low risk of bias The data of only two participants (5%) were missing. Low risk of bias Outcome assessors were blinded. Low risk of bias Only the journal article is avaible. Some concerns Lack of details about allocation concealment, and only the journal article is available.
Koppers 2006 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. Low risk of bias 7% of the data are missing (3 participants out of 39). Low risk of bias Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements. Some concerns Only the journal article is available. Some concerns Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available.
Larson 1999 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence. High risk of bias 59% of the participants were excluded. High risk of bias Missingness is likely to be dependent on its true value. Low risk of bias Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. Some concerns Only the journal article is available. High risk of bias Lack of details about the randomisation process, and only the trial register is available. There is some concern with ITT and missingness is likely to be dependant on the outcome.
Lisboa 1997 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. Low risk of bias No missing data. Low risk of bias Outcome assessors were blinded. Some concerns Only the journal article is available. Some concerns Lack of details about allocation concealment and only the journal article is available.
Ramirez Sarmiento 2002 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and no differences between the groups at visual inspection. High risk of bias serious concern with ITT analysis. Low risk of bias Missingness is independent on its true value. Low risk of bias Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. Some concerns Only the journal article is available. High risk of bias Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and ITT analysis was not conducted appropriately.
Sanchez Riera 2001 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. Low risk of bias No missing data. Low risk of bias Outcome assessors were blinded. Some concerns Only the journal article is available. Some concerns Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available.
Wu 2017 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. Low risk of bias No missing data. Low risk of bias Observer‐reported outcome that do not involves judgements. Some concerns Some differences between the trial register and the journal article in blinding. Some concerns Lack of details about the randomisation process and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article.
Wu 2017 Some concerns Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Low risk of bias All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. Low risk of bias No missing data. Low risk of bias Observer‐reported outcome that do not involves judgements. Some concerns Some differences between the trial register and the journal article in blinding. Some concerns Lack of details about the randomisation process and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article.