Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment of 23 included RCTs and non-RCTs

From: Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis

RCTs Study Authors Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participants and personnela Blinding of outcome assessmenta Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Other bias Overall
Driver et al., 2016 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Gao et al., 2018 Unclear Unclear Low Low Low Low Low Unclear
Goksu et al., 2016 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Griesdale et al., 2012 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Janz et al., 2016 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Kim et al., 2016 Low Lowb low low Low low low Low
Lascarrou et al., 2017 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Silverberg et al., 2015 Highc Unclear Low Low Low Low Low High
Susler et al., 2016 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Yeatts et al., 2013 Low Low Low Low Highd Low Low High
non-RCTs Study Authors Confounding Selection of participants into study Classification of interventions Deviations from intended interventions Missing data Measurement of outcomes Selection of reported results Overall
Campagne et al., 2008 Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
De Jong et al., 2013 Seriouse Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Seriousf Low Serious
Driver et al., 2018 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate
Hypes et al., 2016 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Khandelwal et al., 2014 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Kory et al., 2013 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Seriousg Low Serious
Lakticova et al., 2015 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Lee et al., 2014 Seriouse Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Serious
Noppens et al., 2012 Seriouse Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Serious
Okamoto et al., 2018 Serious eh Moderate Moderate moderate Moderate Moderate Low Serious
Park et al., 2015 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate
Sakles et al., 2015 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Serious Low Serious
Vassiliadis et al., 2015 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Seriousf Low Serious
  1. aAlthough all studies did not use blinded method, authors judged that the outcome would not be likely to be influenced as patients were unaware of their grouping and it was impossible for operators to be unaware of the patients’ grouping during intubation process. Moreover, although subjective judgments may bias the results in the absence of blinding, most of our important endpoints are robust; bIntubation was required so emergently that a randomization envelope could not be obtained; cAn even/odd numbered randomization strategy was used; dThere was no reason for missing data provided in this study.
  2. eThe skill of operators was significantly different between groups; fThe analysis was based on the number of intubations rather than the number of patients; gThe methods of data collection were different; hIndications of intubation were different between groups