Skip to main content
. 2023 Feb 7;2023(2):CD014909. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014909.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 1.5 Mortality.

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
Lazorthes 1982 Some concerns There was no information on method of randomisation, but there was no baseline imbalance that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received. There were no deviations from intervention. Low risk of bias All participants were included in the analysis. Low risk of bias The assessors were not blinded, but it is not possible that knowledge of the intervention would have influenced the assessment, as death cannot be misdiagnosed. Some concerns No pre‐registered method (registry or protocol) available. Some concerns Some concerns due to the lack of information about the randomisation method and about a predefined analysis plan.
Arezzo 2021 Low risk of bias The generation of the randomisation sequence and the allocation concealment were appropriate. There was no baseline imbalance that would indicate a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received. There were no deviations from intervention Low risk of bias All participants were included in the analysis. 
For our meta‐analysis, however, only patients who had MBP and oAB as intervention were eligible. The relevant data was provided to us by the study authors. Low risk of bias The assessors were not blinded, but it is not possible that knowledge of the intervention would have influenced the assessment, as death cannot be misdiagnosed. Low risk of bias The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT: 04438655). Low risk of bias Low risk of bias in all domains.
Papp 2021 Low risk of bias The generation of the randomisation sequence and the allocation concealment were appropriate. There was no baseline imbalance that would indicate a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received. There were no deviations from intervention. Low risk of bias 89 % of the 597 randomised patients were analysed.
The reasons for exclusion were mostly protocol violations (n=71) or that no anastomosis was created during surgery (n= 47). 7 patients were excluded due to adverse events. Low risk of bias The assessors were blinded to the allocation of patients. Low risk of bias This trial was registered as EudraCT 2015‐005614‐27. Low risk of bias Low risk of bias in all domains.