Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk of bias assessment. Assessment of sources of risk of bias within publications

From: Health promotion programme design and efficacy in relation to ageing persons with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Criteria References
Clark et al.
(1997) [23]
Reijneveld et al. (2003) [27] Sawchuk et al. (2008) [29] Clark et al.
(2001) [24]
Borschmann et al. (2000) [30] Clark et al.
(2012) [26]
Jackson et al. (2000) [25] Resnick et al. (2008) [28]
1. Adequate method of randomisation? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2. Allocation concealment? Y Y Y Y Y U Y U
3. Patient blinding? N N N N Y N N N
4. Provider blinding? N N N N N N N N
5. Outcome assessor blinding? Y Y N Y Y Y Y U
6. Dropout rate described and acceptable? Y N Y N N N N N
7. All participants analysed in allocated group? Y Y Y Y U Y U U
8. Free of suggestive/selective outcome reporting? Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
9. Similarity of baseline characteristics? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
10. Co-interventions avoided or similar? U U U U U U U U
11. Compliance acceptable? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
12. Timing of outcome assessment similar? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Total 0–12 Y 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 5
  1. Y Yes, N No, U Unsure
  2. More than six Y = Low risk of bias