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

Risk of bias for analysis 1.9 Length of hospital stay.

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
Lau 1988 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 >95% of randomised patients were analysed. Low risk of bias Patients are discharged from inpatient therapy after recovery. The timing of discharge is influenced by many factors. Therefore, knowledge about the intervention has little to no influence on the assessment of this outcome. Some concerns No pre‐registered method (registry or protocol) available. Some concerns Some concerns due to the lack of information about a predefined analysis plan.
Ikeda 2016 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 >95% of randomised patients were analysed.
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 infection control doctors and nurses who determined SSIs were blinded to the assignment. The ward doctors and nurses who probably diagnosed all other outcomes were not blinded, but it is unlikely that knowledge of the intervention would have influenced the assessment, as the occurrence of postoperative ileus is associated with clear clinical diagnostic criteria. Low risk of bias This trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000019339). Low risk of bias Low risk of bias in all domains.
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 Patients are discharged from inpatient therapy after recovery. The timing of discharge is influenced by many factors. 
Therefore, knowledge about the intervention has little to no influence on the assessment of this outcome. Low risk of bias The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT: 04438655). Low risk of bias Low risk of bias in all domains.