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