Accidenteel bloedcontact Module 1.2 Risk-of-bias-tabellen
Tabel 1. Overview risk of bias
|
SR |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
% |
Overall quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tarigan 2015 |
Y |
N |
N |
PY |
Y |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
Y |
N |
N |
PY |
N |
Y |
4 (25% |
Low |
|
Aziz 2018 |
Y |
N |
N |
PY |
N |
N |
N |
PY |
Y |
N |
No meta |
No meta |
N |
N |
No meta |
PY |
2 (12.5%) |
Critically low |
|
dos Santos 2018 |
PY |
N |
N |
PY |
N |
Y |
N |
PY |
N |
N |
No meta |
No meta |
N |
N |
No meta |
PY |
1 (6.25%) |
Critically low |
Tabel 2. Tarigan 2015
Author, publication year: Tarigan, 2015
|
Item |
Yes, partial yes or no |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? |
Yes |
|
|
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
No |
No mention is made of registering the protocol. |
|
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
No |
No specific study designs specified, and no explanation given. |
|
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
Partial yes |
Did not search trial registries. |
|
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
Yes |
|
|
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
No |
Not mentioned. |
|
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
No |
Reasons for exclusion of unspecified studies was given, but no list of which studies were specifically excluded and for what reason. |
|
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? |
No |
Studies were not sufficiently described. |
|
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? |
No |
No Risk of Bias analysis of individual studies was performed. |
|
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? |
No |
Not mentioned. |
|
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
Yes |
|
|
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
No |
|
|
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? |
No |
|
|
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? |
Partial yes |
A hypothesis for the found heterogeneity is stated in the discussion. |
|
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
No |
|
|
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? |
Yes |
Authors declared no competing interests, and funding was described. |
Tabel 3. Aziz 2018
Author, publication year: Aziz 2018
|
Item |
Yes, partial yes or no |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? |
Yes |
|
|
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
No |
No mention is made of registering the protocol. |
|
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
No |
No explanation given for including the study designs of their choosing. |
|
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
Partial yes |
Search terms used are not reported and trial registries were not searched. |
|
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
No |
No mention is made of duplicate selection, and there is only one author. |
|
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
No |
No mention is made of duplicate extraction, and there is only one author. |
|
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
No |
No reasons for exclusion are given beyond the exclusion criteria. |
|
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? |
Partial yes |
Studies not sufficiently described. |
|
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? |
Yes |
|
|
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? |
No |
Funding sources were not included. |
|
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
N/A |
|
|
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
N/A |
|
|
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? |
No |
Only a general ‘sense’ of bias was discussed, not of individual studies. |
|
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? |
No |
Heterogeneity not assessed nor discussed. |
|
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
N/A
|
|
|
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? |
Partial yes |
Authors declared no competing interests, but funding source was not reported. |
Tabel 4. dos Santos 2018
Author, publication year:
|
Item |
Yes, partial yes or no |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? |
Partial yes |
Inclusion criteria referred to the research question (which did not contain a control element). |
|
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
No |
No mention is made of registration. |
|
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
No |
No reason given for only selecting “original articles and systematic reviews”. |
|
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
Partial yes |
Trial registries were not searched. |
|
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
No |
No mention made of duplicate study selection |
|
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
(Most likely) Yes |
Mention made of “dupla digitação”, badly translated to English as “double typing”. |
|
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
No |
Reasons for exclusion of unspecified studies was given, but no list of which studies were specifically excluded and for what reason. |
|
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
|
Partial yes |
Description of included studies lacked some detail pertaining to studies’ population and design. |
|
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? |
No |
No RoB analysis was conducted. |
|
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? |
No |
No funding sources reported. |
|
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
N/A |
|
|
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
N/A |
|
|
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? |
No |
Authors did not investigate impact of RoB on review results (see point 9). |
|
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? |
No |
Heterogeneity not assessed nor discussed. |
|
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
N/A |
|
|
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? |
Partial yes |
Funding reported, but no conflict of interest statement was included. |