Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Scores of the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool [12]

From: Lung ultrasound training: a systematic review of published literature in clinical lung ultrasound training

  Selection bias Performance bias Detection bias Attrition bias Reporting bias Other bias Overall risk of bias
Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participants and personnel Blinding of outcome assessment Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Other sources of bias  
Pre and post-test studies
 Noble et al. [13]. 2009 # # 1 1 1 1 ? Low
 Oveland et al. [14]. 2013 # # ? 0 0 0 ? High
 Breitkreutz et al. [15]. 2013 # # 1 0 1 1 ? Low
 Cuca et al. [16]. 2013 # # 0 1 0 1 ? High
 Hulett et al. [17]. 2014 # # 0 0 1 0 ? High
 Bhat et al. [18]. 2015 # # 0 0 0 1 ? High
 Connolly et al. [19]. 2014 # # 1 0 0 0 ? High
 Dinh et al. [20]. 2015 # # 0 0 1 1 ? High
 Heiberg et al. [21]. 2015 # # 0 0 1 0 ? High
 Sanchez-de-Toledo et al. [22]. 2016 # # 1 1 1 1 ? Low
 See et al. [23]. 2016 # # 0 0 1 1 ? High
 Greenstein et al. [24]. 2016 # # 1 0 0 0 ? High
Descriptive studies
 Krishnan et al. [25]. 2013 # # 0 1 1 1 ? Low
 Abbasi et al. [26]. 2012 # # 0 0 1 1 ? High
 Gargani et al. [27]. 2016 # # 0 0 1 1 ? High
Randomized controlled trial
 Edrich et al. [28]. 2016 ? 0 1 1 1 1 ? Low
  1. 0 = high risk of bias, 1 = low risk of bias, ? = unclear risk of bias, # = irrelevant in this study (non-randomized trial)