Table 2. Risk of bias assessment as analysed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool (Higgins et al., 2016).
| References |
Domain A |
Domain B |
Domain C |
Domain D |
Domain E |
Total |
| Ahmetov et al., 2015 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
| Amir et al., 2007 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Ash et al., 2011 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
| Döring et al., 2010 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low |
Low |
| He et al., 2015 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Martinez et al., 2009 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
High |
High |
Unclear |
| Myerson et al., 1999 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
| Papadimitriou et al., 2018 |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Posthumus et al., 2011 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Unclear |
Low |
Low |
| Sawczuk et al., 2013 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Stebbings et al., 2017 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Tobina et al., 2010 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Tsianos et al., 2010 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
| Wolfarth et al., 2008 |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Definition of categories: Domain: (A) sequence generation; (B) allocation concealment; (C) blinding; (D) missing outcome data; (E) selective reporting of results. Total risk of bias grade calculated by assessing the five domains (A–E).
