Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment of included studies

From: Effect of molar intrusion with temporary anchorage devices in patients with anterior open bite: a systematic review

Quality item Sugawara et al. 2002 [22] Deguchi et al. 2011 [23] Buschang et al. 2011 [24] Akan et al. 2013 [25] Xun et al. 2007 [26] Erverdi et al. 2004 [27] Erverdi et al. 2007 [28] Scheffler et al. 2014 [29] Foot et al. 2014 [30] kuroda et al. 2007 [10] Hart et al. 2015 [32] Lee and Park 2008. [31]
1. A clear stated aim 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
2. Inclusion of consecutive patients 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0
3. Prospective collection of data 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1
4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
5. Unbiased assessment of the study end point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Follow-up period appropriate 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2
7. Loss to follow-up less than 5 % 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8. Prospective calculation of the study size 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Additional criteria in the case of comparative study             
9. An adequate control group 2 2 2
10. Contemporary groups 0 2 2
11. Baseline equivalence of groups 0 1 1
12. Adequate statistical analyses 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total 11 18 6 7 7 5 7 9 9 12 9 10