Skip to main content

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)