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) |