Table 3 Risk of bias of included studies (RCTs)
Bias | Authors’ judgment | Support for judgment | |
|---|---|---|---|
Baucom et al. (2008) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using a computer-based random number generator. | |
Allocation concealment | Unclear risk | Allocation in the groups was done by an employee, but nothing was mentioned about the employee being blind. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | Low risk | Blinding | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Low risk | Blinding | |
Incomplete outcome data | Unclear risk | There is not enough information about incomplete data. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but it is clear that all pre-specified and expected outcomes of interest are reported. | |
Budin et. (2008) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into intervention and control groups, using the block randomization method. | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There is not enough information in this regard. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open-label design | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | 21 of 66 patients in intervention group one 24 of 66 patients in intervention group two and 18 of 58 patients in the intervention group three and 9 of 59 patients in the control group were excluded. 32 of 66 partners in intervention group one 36 of 66 partners in intervention group two and 29 of 58 partners in the intervention group three and 26 of 59 partners in the control group were excluded. Reasons for missing data were that interventions were not completed within the specified time frame, patients or partners did not return completed questionnaires, and patients or partners decided to withdraw. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are reported in a pre-specified way. | |
Christensen (1983) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | It is mentioned in the text that the groups are allocated randomly, but the authors did not provide enough information in this regard. | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There is not enough evidence in this regard. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open-label design | |
Incomplete outcome data | Unclear risk | There is not enough information about incomplete data. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but it is clear that all pre-specified and expected outcomes of interest are reported. | |
Fergus et al. (2022) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using a randomized block design. | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There is not enough evidence in this regard. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open-label design | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Eight of 39 participants in the intervention group were excluded which reasons for missing data are not related to outcomes. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but all pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are reported in the pre-specified way. | |
Kalaitz et al. (2007) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | It is mentioned in the text that the groups are allocated randomly, but the authors did not provide enough information in this regard. | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There is not enough evidence in this regard. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open-label design | |
Incomplete outcome data | Unclear risk | There is not enough information about incomplete data. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but it is clear that all pre-specified and expected outcomes of interest are reported. | |
Li et al. (2023) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using a computer random number generator. | |
Allocation concealment | Low risk | Allocation concealment was done by sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | No blinding | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | No blinding | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | 14 of 49 participants in the intervention group and 12 of 49 participants in the control group dropped out of the study but reasons for missing data were not related to outcome. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is available and all pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are reported in the pre-specified way. | |
Nicolaisen et al. (2018) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using the computer-based randomization and block randomization methods. | |
Allocation concealment | Low risk | Block size and allocation sequence were performed by independent statisticians. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Participants were not blinded | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Low risk | Blinding | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | 22 of 102 participants in the intervention group and 35 of 96 participants in the control group dropped out of the study but reasons for missing data were not related to outcome. | |
Selective reporting | High risk | Protocol is available but all pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are not reported in the pre-specified way. | |
Price-Blackshear et al. (2020) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Unclear risk | It is mentioned in the text that the groups are allocated randomly, but the authors did not provide enough information in this regard. | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | There was no evidence for allocation concealment. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | Open-label design | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | 25 of 61 participants in the intervention group and 16 of 57 participants in the control group dropped out of the study. Missing data were not balanced across groups, but the reasons were similar (watched less than 4 videos, too sick, had baby, partner stopped participating, too much time). | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but it is clear that all pre-specified and expected outcomes of interest are reported. | |
Reese et al. (2018) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using the stratified and block method | |
Allocation concealment | High risk | Study project manager assigned participants to interventions but nothing was mentioned about being blind. | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | Open-label design | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High risk | There is not enough evidence in this regard. | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | One of 20 participants in the intervention group was excluded which reasons for missing data are not related to outcomes. | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but all pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are reported in the pre-specified way. | |
Zhang et al. (2022) | Â | Â | |
Random sequence generation | Low risk | Participants were allocated into interventions and control groups, using a computer random number generator. | |
Allocation concealment | Low risk | Allocation concealment was done by opaque sealed envelopes with group allocation codes | |
Blinding of participants and personnel | High risk | No blinding | |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Low risk | Blinding | |
Incomplete outcome data | Low risk | Five of 51 participants in the intervention and four of 53 participants in the control group were excluded. The reasons for missing data were the 3-month follow-up period due to withdrawal of consent and loss of follow-up | |
Selective reporting | Low risk | Protocol is not available but all pre-specified outcomes of interest to the review are reported in the pre-specified way. | |