Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of risk of bias of included trials of surgical and non-surgical treatment of fractures

From: Surgical or non-surgical treatment of traumatic skeletal fractures in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms

Author, year

Randomization process

Deviations from intended interventions

Missing outcome data

Measurement of the outcome

Selection of the reported result

Overall bias

Abbaszadegan, 1990

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Agren, 2013

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Ahrens, 2017

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Arora, 2007

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Arora, 2011

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Azzopardi, 2005

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Boons, 2012

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Buckley, 2002

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Chen, 2011c

Some concern

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Clementson, 2015

Low risk

Some concern

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Dias, 2005

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Duckworth, 2017

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Fjalestad, 2014

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Földhazy, 2010

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Griffin, 2014

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Hussain, 2017

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Ibrahim, 2007

High risk

Some concern

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Judd, 2009

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Karladani, 2000

Some concern

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Koch, 2008

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Kreder, 2006

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Kumar, 2018

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Lee, 2016

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Makwana, 2001

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Marasco, 2013

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Matsunaga, 2017

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

McKee, 2007

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Mirzatolooei, 2011

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Mittal, 2017

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Nouraei, 2011

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Olerud, 2011a

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Olerud, 2011b

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Piazzolla, 2011

Some concern

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Qvist, 2018

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Rangan, 2015

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Robinson, 2013

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Salai, 2000

High risk

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Sanders, 2012

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Shen, 2001

Some concern

High risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

High risk

Siebenga, 2006

Some concern

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Sletten, 2015

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Smekal, 2009

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Tamaoki, 2017

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Thordarson, 1996

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Vinnars, 2008

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Virtanen, 2012

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Willet, 2016

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Woltz, 2017

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Low risk

Some concern

Wong, 2010

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Wood, 2003

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Wu, 2018

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Zyto, 1997

Low risk

Low risk

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

Some concern

  1. Study quality was assessed for risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool from the Cochrane Collaboration on trials with results on patient-reported pain, physical function, and/or quality of life [14]. If four or five of the individual domains was found to be associated with some concerns of risk of bias, or if one of them was associated with high risk of bias, the overall risk of bias was rated as high risk