Table 2 Risk of bias within studies
Bias | Authors judgment | Support for judgment |
|---|---|---|
Ahmed et al. (2018) [39] | ||
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Simple random sampling has been used |
Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | No specific information |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open label manner |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open label manner |
Incomplete outcome data | High risk | Intention to treat analysis has not conducted. |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is unavailable but the authors have reported their expected mentioned outcomes |
Other | High risk | No registered protocol, sample size calculating method is not specified |
Razali et al. (2017) [40] | ||
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Sealed envelope numbers has been used |
Allocation concealment | Low risk | It was done using “sealed envelope” manner |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open label manner |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open label manner |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | The dropped out has been mentioned and intention to treat has been analyzed |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is unavailable but the both primary and secondary outcomes have been reported |
Other | Low risk | Registered protocol exist, sample size calculating method is specified, Ethical approval exist, Specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, specified funding source, no conflict of interest |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Random number generator has been used |
Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | No specific information |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open label manner |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open label manner |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | The dropped out has been mentioned and intention to treat has been analyzed |
Selective reporting | High risk | Protocol is available but secondary outcomes have not been reported |
Other | Low risk | Registered protocol exist, sample size calculating method is specified, Ethical approval exist, Specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, specified funding source, no conflict of interest |
Random sequence generation | High risk | The days of the Week have been used for randomization |
Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | No specific information |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open label manner |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open label manner |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | The dropped out has been mentioned and intention to treat has been analyzed |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is available and both primary and secondary outcomes have been reported |
Other | Low risk | Registered protocol exist, sample size calculating method is specified, Ethical approval exist, Specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, specified funding source, no conflict of interest |
Kordi et al. (2010) [38] | ||
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Simple random sampling has been used |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There was no evidence for allocation concealment |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open label manner |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open label manner |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | There was no lost to follow up |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is unavailable but both primary and secondary outcomes have been reported |
Other | High risk | Conflict of interest didn’t declared, no specified inclusion and exclusion criteria |