Risk of bias domain | Low risk of bias | High risk of bias | Unclear risk of bias |
---|---|---|---|
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? | A random component in the sequence generation process is described (eg, referring to a random number table) | Non-random method is used (eg, performed by date of admission) | Not specified in the paper |
Was the allocation adequately concealed? | The unit of allocation was by institution, team or professional and allocation was performed on all units at the start of the study; or if the unit of allocation was by patient or episode of care and there was some form of centralised randomisation scheme, an on-site computer system or sealed opaque envelopes were used | Allocation was not adequately concealed | Not specified in the paper |
Were baseline outcome measurements similar? | Performance or patient outcomes were measured prior to the intervention, and no important differences were present across study groups, or if imbalanced but appropriate adjusted analysis was performed | Important differences were present and not adjusted for in analysis | If no baseline measure of outcome |
Were baseline characteristics similar? | Baseline characteristics of the study and control providers are reported and similar | No report of characteristics in text or tables or if there are differences between control and intervention providers | Not clear in the paper |
Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? | Missing outcome measures were unlikely to bias the results | Missing outcome data was likely to bias the results | Not specified in the paper |
Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented? | The authors state explicitly that the primary outcome variables were assessed blindly, or the outcomes are objective (eg, length of hospital stay) | Outcomes were not assessed blindly and not objective | Not specified in the paper |
Was the study free from selective outcome reporting? | There is no evidence that outcomes were selectively reported | Some important outcomes are omitted from the results | Not specified in the paper |
Was the study adequately protected against contamination? | Allocation was by community, institution or practice and it is unlikely that the control group received the intervention. | It is likely that the control group received the intervention. | Communication between intervention and control professionals could have occurred |
Was the study free from other risks of bias? | There is no evidence of other risk of biases |
*Adapted for ease of presentation. See http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources-review-authors for full explanation.