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

RCTsStudy AuthorsRandom sequence generationAllocation concealmentBlinding of participants and personnelaBlinding of outcome assessmentaIncomplete outcome dataSelective reportingOther biasOverall
Driver et al., 2016LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Gao et al., 2018UnclearUnclearLowLowLowLowLowUnclear
Goksu et al., 2016LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Griesdale et al., 2012LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Janz et al., 2016LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Kim et al., 2016LowLowblowlowLowlowlowLow
Lascarrou et al., 2017LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Silverberg et al., 2015HighcUnclearLowLowLowLowLowHigh
Susler et al., 2016LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLow
Yeatts et al., 2013LowLowLowLowHighdLowLowHigh
non-RCTsStudy AuthorsConfoundingSelection of participants into studyClassification of interventionsDeviations from intended interventionsMissing dataMeasurement of outcomesSelection of reported resultsOverall
Campagne et al., 2008UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclear
De Jong et al., 2013SeriouseModerateModerateModerateModerateSeriousfLowSerious
Driver et al., 2018ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowLowModerate
Hypes et al., 2016ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowModerate
Khandelwal et al., 2014ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowModerate
Kory et al., 2013ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateSeriousgLowSerious
Lakticova et al., 2015ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowModerate
Lee et al., 2014SeriouseModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowSerious
Noppens et al., 2012SeriouseModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowSerious
Okamoto et al., 2018Serious ehModerateModeratemoderateModerateModerateLowSerious
Park et al., 2015ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateLowModerate
Sakles et al., 2015ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateSeriousLowSerious
Vassiliadis et al., 2015ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateSeriousfLowSerious
  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