BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Systematic Reviews
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Meta-Anal. Jun 18, 2025; 13(2): 105511
Published online Jun 18, 2025. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v13.i2.105511
Table 5 Risk of bias[14-21]
Criteria
Reimer-Taschenbrecker et al[14]
Jeong and Choi[15]
Landau et al[16]
Tawfik et al[17]
Andersson et al[18]
Kim et al[19]
Agiwal et al[20]
Weil et al[21]
Did the study address a clearly focused issue?√√√√√√√√
Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way?√√√√√√√√
Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias?√√√√√√√√
Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias?√√√√√√√√
Have the authors identified all important confounding factors?√√√√√√√√
Have they taken account of confounding factors in the design/analysis?√√√√√√△√
Was the follow-up of subjects complete enough?××√××××△
Was the follow-up of subjects long enough?××√××××√
What are the results of this study?√√√√√√√√
How precise are the results?√√√√√√√√
Do you believe the results?√√√√√√√√
Can the results be applied to the local population?√√△△√√√√
Do the results fit with other available evidence?△△√√√√√√
What are the implications of this study for practice?√√√√√√√√
Positive/methodologically sound√√√√√√√√
Negative/relatively poor methodology××××××××
Unknowns△△△△△△△△


Write to the Help Desk