|
Study
|
Outcome
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
Overall
|
|---|
|
Allen 2020
|
CS rate
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
L
|
NI
|
L
|
M
|
M
|
|
Dunn 2013
|
CS rate
|
C
|
L
|
L
|
S
|
NI
|
L
|
L
|
C
|
|
Gurol-Urganci 2014
|
CS rate
|
M
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
S
|
L
|
L
|
S
|
|
Hutcheon 2015
|
CS rate
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
L
|
NI
|
L
|
M
|
M
|
|
MacAllister 2019
|
CS rate
|
C
|
L
|
L
|
S
|
NI
|
L
|
L
|
C
|
|
Nicholl 2010
|
CS rate, NICU admission
|
C
|
L
|
L
|
NI
|
NI
|
M
|
L
|
C
|
|
Nicoll 2004
|
CS rate, NICU admission
|
C
|
L
|
L
|
NI
|
NI
|
M
|
L
|
C
|
|
Snowden 2016
|
CS rate, NICU admission
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
M
|
L
|
S
|
L
|
S
|
|
Tanger 2010
|
CS rate
|
C
|
L
|
L
|
NI
|
NI
|
L
|
L
|
C
|
|
Yamasato 2015
|
CS rate
|
S
|
L
|
L
|
M
|
M
|
L
|
L
|
S
|
- Risk of bias options are L, low; M, moderate; S, serious; C, critical; and NI, no information
- 1 bias due to confounding, 2 bias in selection of participants into the study, 3 bias in classification of interventions, 4 bias due to deviations from intended interventions, 5 bias due to missing data, 6 bias in measurement of outcomes, 7 bias in selection of the reported result, CS caesarean section assessment according to ROBINS-I tool
- The seven bias domains are individually assessed for each study
