Skip to main content

Table 3 Reasons for rating randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation in non-Cochrane reviews

From: Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials

Review Number of randomised trials rated as high ROB for sequence generation (% of total included randomised trials) Reason for high ROB for sequence generation (as stated by the review authors)
Faruque et al. [16] 32 (28.8%) (Not reported by review authors)
Hollingsworth et al. [17] 1 (1.8%) (Not reported by review authors)
Cipriani et al. [18] 1 (2.9%) (Not reported by review authors)
Collister et al. [19] 1 (5.9%) (Not reported by review authors)
Eng et al. [20] 15 (51.7%) (Not reported by review authors)
Franco et al. [21] 4 (6.5%) (Not reported by review authors)
Hazlewood et al. [22] 8 (5.1%) (Not reported by review authors)
Khera et al. [23] 1 (3.6%) (Not reported by review authors)
Subramaniam et al. [24] 9 (10.5%) (Not reported by review authors)
Schandelmaier et al. [25] 2 (7.7%) Leung 2004: “Quasi randomised based on sequence of admission, Urita 2013: Used odd even system for treatment allocation”
Sukkar et al. [10] 6 (7.1%) (Not reported by review authors)