Table 2 Assessment methodologic quality
From: Antiarrhythmia drugs for cardiac arrest: a systemic review and meta-analysis
Random-sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding | Incomplete outcome data addressed? | Free of selective reporting/other bias | Assessment of risk of bias across study | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kudenchuk et al. [11] | Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported | Lack of details reported | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Skrifvars et al. [12] | High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Fatovich et al. [15] | Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported | Adequately performed | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Thel et al. [16] | Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported | Performed according to the text, lack of details reported | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Allegra et al. [14] | Random sequence generated by computer | Performed according to the text, lack of details reported | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Hassan et al. [13] | Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported | Sealed envelopes were used for allocation, adequate | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Harrision [17] | High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design | No blinding | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Herlitz et al. [18] | High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Dorian et al. [19] | Complete randomization was used according to the text, no details reported | Adequately performed | Adequate | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
Rea et al. [20] | High risk of allocation bias was considered, according to the retrospective design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Amino et al. [21] | Randomized controlled design, but lack of detailed information, unclear risk of allocation bias was considered | Blinding was performed, but lack of details | Yes | Yes | Unclear risk of bias | |
Igarashi et al. [24] | High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Tahara et al. [23] | High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the retrospective design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Shiga et al. [22] | High risk of allocation bias was considered according to the prospective observational design | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | High risk of bias | |
Nowak et al. [26] | Randomization was performed, but lack of details was found | Lack of details reported | Double-blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | Unclear risk of bias |
Olson et al. [25] | Randomization was performed, but lack of details was found | Lack of details reported | No blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | Unclear risk of bias |
Kovoor et al. [27] | Quasi-randomization was considered, according to the text | Adequately performed according to the text, lack of details | Double-blinding was performed | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |