Outcomes of reverse vs anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in glenohumeral osteoarthritis without rotator cuff deficiency: A meta-analysis

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment for included studies using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool

Ref.	Bias due to confounding	Bias in selection of participants	Bias in classification of interventions	Bias due to deviations from intended interventions	Bias due to missing data	Bias in measurement of outcomes	Bias in selection of reported result	Overall risk of bias
Ardebol et al[14], 2024	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Haritinian et al[15], 2020	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate
Hones et al[16], 2024	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kim[17], 2024	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kirsch et al[18], 2022	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate
Mahylis et al[19], 2024	Serious	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Serious
Merolla et al[20], 2020	Serious	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Serious
Polisetty et al[21], 2021	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Steen et al[22], 2015	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Trammell et al[23], 2023	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Turnbull et al[24], 2024	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Moderate
Wright et al[25], 2020	Serious	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Serious

Low: Comparable to a well-performed randomized trial; Moderate: Sound for a non-randomized study but not comparable to a high-quality randomised control trial; Serious: Important problems in design or execution.