Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk of bias of included studies according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias toola

From: Comparative effectiveness of immunosuppressive drugs and corticosteroids for lupus nephritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author Year Randomization Allocation concealment Blinding of assessor and/or physician (for assessment of objective outcomes) Blinding of participants (for assessment of subjective outcomes) Intention to treat Free of selective reporting Source of funding
Austin 2009 Low risk Low risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Carette 1983 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk High risk Low risk
Steinberg 1991 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Donadio 1976 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk
Pohl 1991 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Wang 2007 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Isenberg; An analysis of ALMS study 2010 Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Appel (ALMS study) 2009 Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Austin 1986 Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Balletta 1992 Unclear risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk
Bao 2008 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Barron 1982 High risk High risk Low risk Low risk High risk High risk Low risk
Boumpas 1992 Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Cade 1973 High risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Chan 2000 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Chen 2011 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Clark 1981 Unclear risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Clark 1984 Unclear risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Contreras 2002 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
CYCLOFA-LUNE Study 2010 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Derksen 1988 Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Donadio 1974 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk
Donadio 1978 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Doria 1994 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Dyadyk 2001 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
El-Shafey 2010 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Fu 1998 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk
Ginzler 2005 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Gourley 1996 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Grootscholten (Dutch Lupus study) 2006 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Hahn 1975 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Hong 2007 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Houssiau 2002 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Lewis 1992 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Li 2009a Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Li 2009b Unclear risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Lui 1997 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
LUNAR Study 2012 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
MAINTAIN Nephritis Study 2010 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Mitwalli 2011 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Mok 2009 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Moroni 2004 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Mulic-Basic 2008 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
My-Lupus Study 2010 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Ong 2005 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Sabry 2009 High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Sesso 1994 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk
Steinberg 1971 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Sundel/Sandel 2008 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Wallace 1998 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Yee 2004 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk
Li 2012 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Low risk
Yap 2012 Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Stoenoiu 2012 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Chen 2012 Low risk Low risk High risk High risk High risk Unclear risk Unclear risk
Arends (long term FU of Dutch Lupus study) 2012 Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Sundel (report of induction and maintenance phases of ALMS study) 2012 Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Walsh (post-hoc subgroup analysis of ALMS) 2013 Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
PetrI 2010 Low risk Unclear High risk High risk Low risk Unclear risk Low risk
Zeher 2011 Low risk Low risk High risk High risk High risk Unclear risk High risk
Dooley 2011 Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk Unclear risk High risk Unclear risk High risk
  1. Radhakrishnan 2010 was a pooled analyses of two studies, and Mok 2001, Hu 2002, and Wang 2008 [3336] were observational studies used in the Cochrane Review; therefore, risk of bias could not be assessed for these studies
  2. aHiggins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/. In: Higgins JP, Green S, eds 2011