Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment according to the Quality of Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool (n = 32)

From: Predictors of health-related quality of life after burn injuries: a systematic review

Study

Study Participation

Study attrition

Prognostic factor measurement

Outcome measurement

Study confounding

Statistical analysis and reporting

Total score

Ahuja et al. 2016 [27]

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Anzarut et al. 2005 [53]

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

Moderate

13

Blalock et al. 1994 [54]

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

High

Low

11

Corry et al. 2010 [55]

Moderate

High

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

10

Cromes et al. 2002 [56]

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

13

Edgar et al. 2013 [17]

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Ekeblad et al. 2015 [29]

Low

Moderate

High

Low

High

Low

11

Finlay et al. 2014 [57]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Finlay et al. 2015 [58]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Kildal et al. 2001 [59]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Kildal et al. 2004 [60]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Kildal et al. 2005 [61]

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

10

Knight et al. 2017 [62]

Moderate

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

9

Leblebici et al. 2006 [63]

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

10

Low et al. 2012 [64]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Moi et al. 2007 [65]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

8

Moi and Nilsen 2012 [9]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Novelli et al. 2009 [66]

High

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

14

Orwelius et al. 2013 [28]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

7

Oster et al. 2011 [18]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Oster et al. 2013 [30]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Palmu et al. 2015 [67]

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Moderate

9

Renneberg et al. 2014 [68]

Moderate

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

9

Ricci et al. 2014 [69]

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

11

Roh et al. 2012 [70]

Moderate

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

9

Tahir et al. 2011 [71]

Low

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

12

Van Loey et al. 2012 [20]

Low

High

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Wasiak et al. 2014 [72]

Low

High

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Willebrand et al. 2006 [73]

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

10

Willebrand and Ekselius 2011 [74]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

9

Xie et al. 2012 [75]

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

8

Zhang et al. 2014 [33]

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

10

  1. The total score was composed of the sum of the domain scores, with low risk = 1, moderate risk = 2, and high risk = 3