Table 2 Risk of bias of included RCTs
Author/ year | Bias arising from the randomization process | Bias due to deviations from the intended interventions | Bias due to missing outcome data | Bias in measurement of the outcome | Bias in selection of the reported result | Overall bias | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Castroflorio et al. 2017 [16] | Authors' judgement: high risk Support for judgement: no details provided about randomization and allocation concealment processes | Authors’ judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: carers and trial personnel aware of participants’ assigned intervention | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: all outcome data available | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: outcome assessors blinded | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: reported outcome data unlikely to have been selected | Authors’ judgement: high risk |
2 | Alswafeeri et al. 2015 [17] | Authors’ judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: randomization process adequate but allocation concealment process not described | Authors’ judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: carers and trial personnel aware of participants’ assigned intervention | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: all outcome data available | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: outcome assessors not blinded | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: reported outcome data unlikely to have been selected | Authors’ judgement: high risk |
3 | Wahab et al. 2014 [18] | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: quasi-randomization process and allocation concealment process not described | Authors' judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: carers and trial personnel aware of participants’ assigned intervention | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: all outcome data available | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: outcome assessors not blinded | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: reported outcome data unlikely to have been selected | Authors’ judgement: high risk |
4 | Barbieri et al. 2013 [19] | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: no details provided about randomization and allocation concealment processes | Authors’ judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: carers and trial personnel aware of participants’ assigned intervention | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: all outcome data available | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: outcome assessors not blinded | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: reported outcome data unlikely to have been selected | Authors’ judgement: high risk |
5 | Kalha et al. 2010 [20] | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: no details provided about randomization and allocation concealment processes | Authors’ judgement: some concerns Support for judgement: carers and trial personnel aware of participants’ assigned intervention | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: all outcome data available | Authors’ judgement: high risk Support for judgement: outcome assessors not blinded | Authors’ judgement: low risk Support for judgement: reported outcome data unlikely to have been selected | Authors’ judgement: high risk |