Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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