Skip to main content

Table 5 Risk of bias for randomised studies using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool

From: A systematic review of interventions to increase awareness of mental health and well-being in athletes, coaches and officials

Study

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome assessment

Incomplete outcome data

Selective reporting

Other bias

Summary

Gulliver et al. [69]

aAutomated computer system used

aConditions allocated by researchers not involved in day-to-day management

aDescribed method used to reduce likelihood of participant knowledge of intervention

bUnclear whether assessors had knowledge of treatment groups when assessing effects

aAnalyses adjusted for data being missing at random

aAll outcome measure effects were reported, along with effect sizes for each group

aStudy limitations were addressed and caution is urged when interpreting significant effects

Low risk of bias for this study. One domain (blinding of outcome assessors) was unclear but it is unlikely if that influenced the results given the online format of the intervention and data collection

Van Raalte et al. [74]

bMethod not disclosed

bUnclear who performed randomisation

bUnclear if participants were or were not blinded to their intervention

b Unclear whether assessors had knowledge of treatment groups when assessing effects

a Analyses adjusted for data being missing at random

aAll outcome measure effects were reported, along with effect sizes for each group

aAuthors were transparent about each stage of the intervention design

Unclear risk of bias for this study. Information on selection, performance and detection bias was not disclosed, though attrition and reporting bias was low

Summary of bias across studies

Random sequence generation was performed in both studies, but one did not disclose the method

Methods of allocation were mixed, with one not providing information and the other having a low risk of bias

Across the two studies, one was unclear for blinding participants and the other controlled for contamination

Both studies demonstrated an unclear risk of bias for blinding the assessors’ knowledge

The risk of bias was low for both studies on controlling for missing data

There was a low risk of bias across the studies for reporting outcomes

Transparency was ensured by both studies, resulting in a low risk of bias

Findings were mixed for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants, collectively unclear for blinding outcomes, and both positive in terms of controlling for missing data, selective reporting and other biases

  1. aLow risk of bias
  2. bUnclear risk of bias
  3. cHigh risk of bias