Invasieve beademing Module 5 Risk-of-bias-tabel

Publicatiedatum 18-04-2025 | 11:00

Risk of bias table for intervention studies (randomized controlled trials; based on Cochrane risk of bias tool and suggestions by the CLARITY Group at McMaster University)

Study reference (first author, publication year)	Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Was the allocation adequately concealed? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Blinding: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented? Were patients blinded? Were healthcare providers blinded? Were data collectors blinded? Were outcome assessors blinded? Were data analysts blinded? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Are reports of the study free of selective outcome reporting? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias? Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no	Overall risk of bias If applicable/necessary, per outcome measure LOW Some concerns HIGH
Vijaysabari, 2024	Definitely yes; Reason: patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomized into two groups by computer-generated random number	Definitely no; Reason: not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.	Probably no; Reason: Reason: not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.	Probably yes; Reason: No loss to follow-up	Definitely yes; Reason: All relevant outcomes were reported	Definitely yes; Reason: No other problems noted	HIGH Not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.
Dahl, 2024	Definitely yes; Reason: all the patients were randomized into open and closed suction groups by a computer-generated random number table (www.sealedenve lope. com). The randomization sequence was generated in blocks of four with a 1:1 allocation ratio in the open vs. closed group.	Definitely yes; Reason: the allocation sequence was concealed from the primary researcher.	Probably no; Reason: Reason: not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.	Probably yes; Reason: No loss to follow-up	Definitely yes; Reason: All relevant outcomes were reported	Definitely yes; Reason: No other problems noted	HIGH Not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.
Gahan, 2024	Definitely yes; Reason: Participants meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized to either closed or open–suction groups using computergenerated random numbers with blocks of varying sizes. The random sequence numbers were generated by an independent researcher.	Definitely yes; Reason: The sequence was kept in serially numbered sealed opaque envelopes which were opened at the time of randomization	Probably no; Reason: Reason: not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.	Probably yes; Reason: No loss to follow-up	Definitely yes; Reason: All relevant outcomes were reported	Definitely yes; Reason: No other problems noted	HIGH Not being blinded to both participants and outcomes.