Coronary computed tomography angiography vs stress testing for stable angina evaluation: Diagnostic and prognostic superiority

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment of included studies

Ref.	Randomization process	Deviations from intended interventions	Missing outcome data	Measurement of outcome	Selection of the reported result	Overall risk of bias
Singh et al[11]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Stillman et al[12]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Some concerns (limited outcome events may impact reporting)	Some concerns
Lubbers et al[13]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Lubbers et al[14]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Linde et al[15]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

The quality of the five randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool. As shown in Table 3, all studies were rated as having low risk of bias in randomization, adherence to interventions, outcome measurement, and completeness of outcome data. One study (RESCUE) was marked with some concerns due to limited outcome event reporting. Overall, the included studies exhibited strong methodological rigor, enhancing the reliability of this review’s conclusions.