Association between late gadolinium enhancement and outcome in dilated cardiomyopathy: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Risk of bias assessment in the meta-analysis

Ref.	Selection				Comparability	Outcome			Total score
	Exposed cohort	Nonexposed cohort	Ascertainment of exposure	Outcome of interest		Assessment of outcome	Length of follow-up	Adequacy of follow-up
Halliday et al[6], 2019	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	7
Gulati et al[2], 2013	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	7
Behera et al[9], 2020	1	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	8
Tateishi et al[10], 2015	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	7
Lehrke et al[11], 2011	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	7
Perazzolo et al[7], 2014	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	9
Neilan et al[12], 2013	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	1	8
Yamada et al[13], 2014	1	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	8
Buss et al[14], 2015	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
Mikami et al[15], 2016	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	1	8
Puntmann et al[16], 2016	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	1	8
Masci et al[17], 2012	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	7
Šramko et al[8], 2013	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	9
Amzulescu et al[20], 2015	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	5
Alba et al[21], 2020	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	6
Xu et al[18], 2021	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
Barison et al[19], 2020	1	1	1	1	2	0	1	1	8
Halliday et al[4], 2017	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	6
Di Marco et al[22], 2021	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	5

The total score was 9, and the higher the score, the lower the bias, besides, scores ≤ 5 means a relative high risk of bias.