Methodological quality assessment and risk-of-bias
Randomisation adequate? | Allocation concealed? | Groups similar at baseline? | Patient blinded? | Care provider blinded? | Outcome ssessor blinded? | Dropout rate described and acceptable? | Intention to treat analysis? | Co-interventions avoided or similar? | Compliance acceptable? | Timing outcome assessment similar? | Report free of selective outcome reporting | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilkens et al30 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 12 |
Tant et al31 | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | 6 |
Leffler et al32 | unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10 |
Risk-of-bias assessed using criteria from the CBRG.27 Studies rated as having a ‘low risk-of-bias’ when at least 6 of the 12 CBRG criteria have been met and it has no serious flaws.