Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

From: The impact on quality of life from informing diagnosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study ID 1.Bias due to confounding 2.Bias in selection of participants into the study 3.Bias in classification of interventions 4.Bias due to deviations from intended interventions 5.Bias due to missing data 6.Bias in measurement of outcomes 7.Bias in selection of the reported result overall risk of bias
Ali 2009 [19] *** **** **** **** **** **** a ***
Xiaoping Fan 2011 *** **** **** ** *** **** a **
Yuanling Li 2014 [27] *** **** **** **** **** **** a ***
Jianjun Zou 2006 [10] ** **** **** **** **** **** a ***
Jie Luo 2012 [23] ** **** **** **** **** **** a **
Zhenjing Liu 2006 [11] ** **** * **** **** **** a *
Noritoshi 1998 [8] ** **** **** **** *** **** **** **
Nobuhisa 2015 [28] ** **** **** **** * **** a *
Liping Zhao 2007 [14] ** **** **** **** **** **** a **
Lianxue Zheng 2009 [16] * **** **** **** **** **** a *
Ruihong Kong 2009 [17] * **** **** **** * **** a *
Zaili Feng 2014 [26] ** **** **** **** **** **** a **
Xue Xu 2011 [20] *** **** **** **** **** **** a ****
Lina Wang 2013 [24] **** **** **** **** *** **** a ***
Fang Ding 2008 [15] ** **** **** **** **** **** a **
Zhaoxia Li 2009 [18] ** **** *** **** **** **** a **
Bo Yang 2015 [29] **** **** *** **** **** **** a ***
Yuqian Sun 2012 [22] ** **** *** **** **** **** a **
Alexandra 2006 [13] *** **** **** **** **** **** a ***
H. Bozcuk 2001 [9] *** **** **** **** **** **** a ***
Liping Fu 2013 [25] ** **** *** **** **** **** a **
Xiuling Wang 2006 [12] ** **** **** ** **** **** a **
Ruifen Zhang 2016 [30] ** **** **** ** **** **** a **
  1. **** Low
  2. *** Moderate
  3. ** Critical
  4. aNo information