Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality and risk of bias assessment tool

From: MRI findings of radiation-induced changes of masticatory muscles: a systematic review

Parameters of evaluations Pajari et al. 1996[17] Chong et al. 2000[16] Ariji et al. 2002[14] Bhatia et al. 2009[15]
A. Selection bias 1. Randomized sample N/A No N/A No
2. Sample size ≥ 30 N/A No N/A Yes
3. Adequate test group: N/A Yes N/A Yes
• Were cases selected appropriately (e.g., appropriate diagnostic criteria or definitions)
4. Adequate control (before and after) No No Yes No
• Inadequate: contralateral side of same patient
5. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for recruitment N/A No N/A Yes
B. Detection or measurement bias 6. Adequate follow-up Yes No No No
• Inadequate: or follow-up period was not the same between patients, or less than 9 months post-treatment.
7. Was the intervention assessed using a reliable measure? i.e. pre-treatment muscular tissue assessment No No Yes Yes
• Example: with MRI, CT, or others.
8. Were the outcomes assessed using a reliable measure? i.e. MRI muscle tissue assessment measurements No No No No
• Example: Inter or intra-examiner agreement reported
9. Outcome assessors blinded to intervention. No No No No
10. Reported and statistically controlled for confounding factors. N/A No N/A No
C. Analysis or interpretation bias 11. Adequate statistical tests used. N/A No N/A Yes
Inadequate: e.g. univariate analysis for multivariate outcomes
12. Adequate and complete reporting of results N/A No N/A No
Inadequate: e.g. lack of SD or 95% CI, reporting significance based on P value when R2/correlation is <50%.
D. Performance bias 13. Did researchers rule out any impact from a concurrent intervention or an unintended exposure that might bias results? N/A Yes N/A Yes
Total score    1/5 2/13 2/5 6/13