Page 314 - Demo

Chapter 12312Risk of Bias4 studies were assessed using the MINORS scale, of which 1 was noncomparative and 3 were comparative. Due to the retrospective nature and lack of blinding of the results in several studies, the overall score of both the comparative and noncomparative studies was rather low, indicating a high risk of bias. (Table 6). One RCT was screened for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. An overview of this assessment is included in Table 7. This study scored an unclear risk of bias due to not mentioning if blinding of personnel and blinding of outcome assessment had occurred. In the other fields evaluated, this study scored a low risk of bias. One case series was not evaluated for bias because it was—per definition—more susceptible to bias and selection bias in particular. As such, it was considered “high” in risk for bias.Table 6. Risk of bias assessment of nonrandomized controlled trial using the MINORS scale.(10)Study (Year)Clearly stated aimInclusion of consecutive patientsProspective data collectionEndpoints appropriate to study aimUnbiased assessment of the study endpointFollow-up period appropriate to study aim<5% lost to follow-upProspective calculation of study sizeAdequate control groupContemporary groupsBaseline equivalence of groupsAdequate statistical analysesTotalAustin & Shupe (1993) (12) 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 16/24Braun (1987) (13) 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 14/24Oh et al. (2002) (7) 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 19/24Leandro et al. (2013) (15) 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12/16Abbreviations: N/A, not applicableNikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 312 05-06-2024 10:15