Appendix 3.Risk of bias assessed by Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) critical appraisal tools [1]. Risk of bias was categorized as High when the study reaches up to 49% score “yes”, Moderate when the study reached 50% to 69% score “yes”, and Low when the study reached more than 70% score “yes”.
3A - Experimental Studies.
Question / Answer*Olbers et al, 2006 [20] / Schollenberger et al, 2016 [19]
1. Was the assignment to treatment groups random? / Y / Y
2. Were participants blinded to treatment allocation? / N / Y
3. Was allocation to treatment groups concealed from the allocator? / U / Y
4. Were the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis? / N / N
5. Were those assessing outcomes blind to the treatment allocation? / U / Y
6. Were the control and treatment groups comparable at entry? / Y / Y
7. Were groups treated identically other than for the named interventions? / Y / N
8. Were outcomes measured in the same way for all groups? / Y / Y
9. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? / Y / Y
10. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? / Y / N
% yes/risk / 60/mod / 70//low
[1]The Joanna Briggs Intitute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition [Updated 2014]. Accessed April 20, 2016.
*Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear, NA=Not applicable, Mod=moderate.
3B - Descriptive studies.
Questions / Answers*Bavaresco et al, 2010 [13] / Carrasco et al, 2007 [18] / Giusti et al, 2016 [5] / Gobato et al, 2014 [14] / Nicoletti et al, 2013 [15]
- Was the study based on a random or pseudorandom sample?
- Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
- Were confounding factors identified and strategies to deal with them stated?
- Were outcomes assessed using objective criteria?
- If comparisons are being made, was there sufficient description of the groups?
- Was the follow up carried out over a sufficient time period?
- Were the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis?
- Were the outcomes measured in a reliable way?
- Was an appropriate statistical analysis used?
% yes/risk / 44.44/ high / 66.66/ mod / 66.66/ mod / 44.44/high / 44.44/ high
[1]The Joanna Briggs Intitute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition [Updated 2014]. Accessed April 20, 2016.
*Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear, NA=Not applicable, Mod=moderate.
3C – Cohort studies.
Questions / Answers*Andreu et al, 2010 [8] / Coupaye et al, 2014 [16] / Moize et al, 2013 [17] / Raftopoulos et al, 2011 [3] / Verger et al, 2015 [4]
1. Is sample representative of patients in the population as a whole? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
2. Are the patients at a similar point in the course of their condition/illness? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
3.Has bias been minimized in relation to selection of cases and of controls? / Y / N / Y / Y / Y
4. Are confounding factors identified and strategies to deal with them stated? / N / N / N / Y / N
5. Are outcomes assessed using objective criteria? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
6. Was follow-up carried out over a sufficient time period? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
7. Were the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? / Y / Y / Y / Y / Y
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? / Y / N / Y / Y / Y
% yes/risk / 88.88/
low / 66.66/
mod / 88.88/
low / 100/
low / 88.88/
low
[1]The Joanna Briggs Intitute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition [Updated 2014]. Accessed April 20, 2016.
*Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear, NA=Not applicable, Mod=moderate.
1