• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

links.lww.com/CJP/A752

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2024

Membagikan "links.lww.com/CJP/A752"

Copied!
2
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

Table S3. Risk of bias assessment findings for all studies included in the meta-analysis (lower total scores indicate higher risk of bias)

(2)

Study Prospective? Representative? Outcome measures?

Losses to follow-up?

Total

Altmaier et al. (1992) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Angst et al. (2006) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Angst et al. (2010) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Angst et al. (2013) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Angst et al. (2009) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Beekman et al. (1985) Yes Yes No No 2

Benz et al. (2019) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Björnsdóttir et al. (2016) Yes No Yes Yes 3

Boonstra et al. (2015) No Yes Yes Yes 3

Borys et al. (2015) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Brockow et al. (2007) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Buchner et al. (2007) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Buchner et al. (2006) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Cardosa et al. (2012) No Yes Yes Yes 3

Cassisi et al. (1989) No Yes No Yes 2

Cinciripini & Floreen (1982)

Yes Yes No No 2

Conway et al. (2019) Yes No Yes Yes 3

Cowburn et al. (2011) No Yes Yes No 2

Deardorff et al. (1991) Yes No No Yes 2

Dolce et al. (1986) Yes Yes No Yes 3

Farin (2015) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Gilpin et al. (2018) No Yes Yes Yes 3

Gough & Frost (1996) No Yes Yes No 2

Grahn et al. (1998) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Guildford et al. (2018) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Haiduk et al. (2017) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Hampel et al. (2009) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Hampel & Tlach (2015) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Jensen et al. (1995) Yes Yes No No 2

Jensen et al. (1997) Yes No No Yes 2

Johansson et al. (1998) Yes Yes No No 2

Keefe et al. (1981) No Yes No No 1

Keel et al. (1998) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Klemm et al. (2020) No Yes Yes Yes 3

Kool et al. (2005) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Linden et al. (2014) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Lipchik et al. (1993) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Mangels et al. (2011) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Mangels et al. (2009) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

McCracken et al. (2015) Yes No Yes Yes 3

McCracken & Jones (2012)

No No Yes No 1

McCracken et al. (2007) Yes No Yes Yes 3

McCracken et al. (2005) Yes Yes Yes No 3

McCuish & Bearne (2014) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Mellin et al. (1993) No Yes No No 1

Meng et al. (2017) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Meng et al. (2011) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Michalsen et al. (2013) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Moore et al. (1986) Yes No Yes Yes 3

Moore et al. (1984) Yes Yes No Yes 3

Moradi et al. (2009) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Moradi et al. (2012) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Morley et al. (2008) No Yes Yes Yes 3

Murphy et al. (2016) No No Yes No 1

Musekamp et al. (2019) Yes Yes Yes No 3

Orr & Bratton (1992) No Yes Yes No 2

Peters & Large (1990) Yes Yes Yes Yes 4

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Farooqi and O’Brien (2019) indicate that Islamic banks have lower operating risk and higher market risk compared to conventional ones in the Gulf State region, while Mohammad,

Supplementary Table 2: Quality Assessment and risk of bias in individual studies evaluated using Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal

Certainty assessment № of patients Effect Certainty Number of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Balanced

Other studies reported similar findings in people with cardiovascular disease or hypertension.6,8 We conducted a prospective trial, the Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and

Prymula 2009 Quality assessment No of patients Effect Quality Importance No of studies Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations

Settings: clinics Bibliography: Sahebihagh 2011 3,4 Quality assessment No of patients Effect Quality Importance No of studies Design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness

REVIEW Western Dietary Patterns, Foods, and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies Wei Quan,1Maomao Zeng,1Ye

The meta-analysis assessing the risk of halitosis in current smokers versus nonsmokers included nine comparisons from eight studies.. The interstudy heterogeneity was high I2