Skip to main content

Table 2 The risk of bias assessment for each trial, according to the Cochrane domain-based evaluation

From: Perioperative goal-directed therapy and postoperative complications in different kind of surgical procedures: an updated meta-analysis

Author, year, country

Blinding of participants and personnel

(performance

bias)

Random sequence generation

(selection bias)

Allocation concealment

(selection bias)

Outcome assessment

(detection

bias)

Incomplete

outcome

(attrition bias)

Selective reporting

(reporting

bias)

Ackland et al 19

2015, Europe

+

+

 

+

+

+

Arslan-Carlon et al. [20]

2020, USA

+

+

+

+

+

+

Bahlmann et al. [21]

2019, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

+

Bartha et al. [22]

2018, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Bender et al. [23]

1997, USA

 

 

Benes et al. [24]

2010, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Bisgaard et al. [25]

2013, Europe

+

+

 

+

+

+

Brandstrup et al. [26]

2012, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

+

Broch et al. [27]

2016, Europe

 

+

  

+

+

Calvo Vecino et al. [5]

2018, Spain

+

+

+

+

+

+

Cecconi et al. [28]

2011, Europe

  

+

+

+

+

Challand et al. [29]

2013, Europe

+

+

+

+

 

+

Colantonio et al. [30]

2015, Europe

+

+

 

+

+

+

Correa-Gallego et al. [31]

2015, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

 

Elgendy et al. [32]

2017, Africa

+

 

+

 

+

Forget et al. [33]

2011, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Gomez-Izquierdo et al. [34]

2017, Canada

+

+

+

+

+

+

Jammer et al. [35]

2010, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Jhanii et al. [36]

2010, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Joosten et al. [37]

2019, Europe

+

+

+

 

+

+

Kaufmann et al. [38]

2018, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

 

Kumar et al. [39]

2016, India

 

+

+

+

+

Lobo et al. [40]

2000, Brazil

 

+

  

+

+

Lopes et al. [41]

2007, Brazil

+

+

+

 

Luo et al. [42]

2017, China

+

  

Mayer et al. [43]

2010, Europe

  

+

+

+

+

Mikor et al. [44]

2015, Europe

+

+

 

+

+

+

Moppett et al. [45]

2014, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

+

Mukai et al. [46]

2020, Japan

+

+

  

+

+

Noblett et al. [47]

2005, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

Pearse et al. [48]

2005, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Pearse et al. [49]

2014, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

+

Pestana et al. [50]

2014, multicentric

+

+

+

+

+

 

Pillai et al. [51]

2011 USA

  

Salzwedel et al. [52]

2013, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

+

Schereen et al. [53]

2013, Europe

  

+

+

+

+

Schmid et al. [54]

2019, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

 

Shoemaker et al. [55]

1998, USA

+

Sinclair et al. [56]

1997, Europe

+

 

+

+

+

+

Srinvasa et al. [57]

2012, Australia

+

+

+

+

+

 

Stens et al. [58]

2017, Europe

 

+

+

  

+

Szturz et al. [59]

2019, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

 

Ueno et al. [60]

1998, China

+

   

Van Beest [61]

2014, Europe

+

+

+

Venn et al. [62]

2002, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Wakeling et al. [63]

2005, Europe

 

+

+

+

+

+

Weineberg et al. [64]

2017, Australia

+

+

+

+

+

+

Weineberg et al. [65]

2019, Australia

+

+

+

+

+

+

Wilson et al. [66]

1999, Europe

+

+

+

+

+

 

Wu et al. [67]

2017, China

   

Zhang el al [68].

2013, China

 

+

+

 

+

+

Zheng et al. [69]

2013, China

+

+

+

+

+

+

  1. This is a two-part tool, addressing seven specific domains (namely sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and ‘other issues’) that are strongly associated with bias reduction. The green plus indicates low risk of bias, the red minus indicates high risk of bias, the white color indicates unclear risk of bias