Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment of studies included in the systematic review

From: Caesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancy interval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Selection bias

Exposure bias

Outcome assessment bias

Confounding factor bias*

Analytical bias

Attrition bias

Overall likelihood of bias

Eijsink et al., 2008 [32]

Moderate

Low

Low

High (no adjustment for confounders reported, matched by maternal age and date of delivery)

Low

Minimal

High

Collin et al., 2006 [10]

Low

Low

Low

Minimal (adjusted for age, parity, level of education, urban or rural residence and young age at first intercourse)

Minimal

Low

Low

Smith et al., 2006 [18]

Minimal

Low

Low

Minimal (adjusted for marital status, deprivation, birth weight, infant sex, maternal age, maternal height and method of induction)

Minimal

Minimal

Low

Murphy et al., 2002 [7]

Low

Low

Low

Minimal (adjusted for maternal and paternal age, co-habitation, oral contraceptive pill use, cigarette exposure, alcohol consumption, educational level, ethnicity, parity, change of partner, maternal BMI)

Minimal

Minimal

Low

Zdeb et al., 1984 [33]

Low

Low

Low

Moderate (none reported). Matching by race, complications of pregnancy, maternal education and maternal age

Moderate

Low

High

Tollånes et al., 2007 [16]

Minimal

Low

Low

Minimal (stratified by maternal age, level of education and infant survival). Sub-group analyses by low-risk group, pre-eclampsia and breech presentation

Low

Minimal

Low

Tower et al., 2000 [16]

Low

Low

Low

Moderate (no adjustment for confounding). Matching by age and date of delivery

Moderate

Moderate

High

Huttly et al., 1990 [34]

Low

Low

Low

Minimal (adjusted for income, age, education and parity)

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Hemminki, 1987 [37]

Low

Low

Low

Moderate (no adjustment for confounders). Matching by year of birth, maternal age and infant sex

Moderate

Low

High

LaSala et al., 1987 [35]

Moderate

Low

Minimal

Moderate (no adjustment for confounding reported). Matching by age and parity

Moderate

Moderate

High

Hemminki et al., 1985 [36]

Low

Low

Minimal

Moderate (no adjustment reported). Matching by date of birth, mother’s age, race and marital status

Moderate

Minimal

High

  1. Table Legend: *Assessment of confounding factor bias was done by evaluation of each study’s assessment of potential confounders by four methods: adjustment with regression, matching, assessment of potential confounders on univariate analyses that were found not to be significantly different between groups, and assessment of potential confounders on univariate analyses that were different between groups and not controlled for.