Skip to main content

Table 2 Cochrane risk of bias table

From: Effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise following total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) (patient-reported outcomes)

Incomplete outcome data addressed (attrition bias)

Lack of selective reporting (reporting bias)

Lack of other sources of bias

Our evaluation

Bruun-Olsen et al. 2013 [29]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes. 6 (2:4) not followed up

Yes

Yes

Good

Evgeniadis et al. 2008 [19]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uneven ITT loss to follow up (37.5% intervention and 20% control)

Yes

Yes

Possible bias due to large and uneven losses to follow up

Frost et al. 2002 [17]

Yes

Not clear

Yes

Uneven loss to follow up (intervention 30%, control 54%)

Yes

Yes

Possible bias due to large and uneven losses to follow up

Fung et al. 2012 [27]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Good

Harmer et al. 2009 [30]

Yes

Yes

Yes (mainly)

Yes. ITT, small losses to follow up

Yes

Yes

Good

Kauppila et al. 2010 [13]

Yes

Probably adequate

No

Yes. Losses to follow up: intervention 18%; control 7%. However patients with incomplete data included in authors’ analyses

Yes

Baseline differences in prevalence of comorbidities and WOMAC score.

Possible risk of bias due to uneven losses to follow up

Kramer et al. 2003 [25]. Also data from Minns Lowe 2007 [8]

Not described

Not described

Yes

“Medical issue” losses to follow up differed between groups (7.5% in clinic and 15% in home-based groups)

Yes

Yes. ITT analysis reported as well as per-protocol

Possible risk of bias due to uneven losses to follow up between groups

Liebs et al. 2010 [28]

Yes

Yes

Yes

11.8% intervention and 18.9% control patients lost to 3 month follow up

Yes

Yes

Possible risk of bias due to uneven losses to follow up

Madsen et al. 2013 [24]

Yes

Yes

Yes

10% intervention and 20% control group lost to follow up. Analysis of change scores

Yes

Yes

Possible risk of bias due to uneven losses to follow up

Minns Lowe et al. 2012 [20]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, low losses to follow up at 12 months

Yes

Yes

Good

Mitchell et al. 2005 [21]

Yes

Yes

Self-completed questionnaires

Yes

Yes

Randomisation before surgery with pre-surgical intervention component. Surgery cancelled for 24 patients

Good

Mockford et al. 2008 [14]

Yes

Yes

Yes

4.7% patients excluded from analysis as lost to follow up

Yes

Yes

Good

Moffet et al. 2004 [18]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes. Uneven loss to follow up at 12 months (intervention 0%, control 20.5%)

Yes

Yes

Good

Possible risk of bias for 12 month outcomes

Monticone et al. 2013 [16]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Good

Piqueras et al. 2013 [22]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Good

Piva et al. 2010 [26]

Yes

Yes

Yes

22.7% control and 14.3% intervention patients lost to follow up

Yes

Yes

Reasonable

Rajan et al. 2004 [15]

Yes

Not described

Yes

5.1% intervention and 1.6% control patients lost to follow up

Yes

Yes

Good

Tousignant et al. 2011 [23]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Similar losses to follow up between groups (intervention 12.5%, control 16.7%)

Yes

3/24 randomised to control withdrew due to knowledge of group allocation

Reasonable