Exact(23)
All these studies were assessed as to whether they met the inclusion criteria for this review, their method of randomization or quasi-randomization, and their adequacy of allocation concealment.
The adequacy of allocation concealment was unclear in all of them.
The adequacy of allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel are unclear in four studies.
Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
*Not reported/could not be assessed (adequacy of allocation concealment could not be deduced from available reports).
Similar results were observed when the assessments focused on the adequacy of allocation concealment or the Jadad assessment.
Similar(37)
There are four basic criteria in the Cochrane Handbook: allocation to conditions by an independent (third) party; blinding of assessors of outcomes; adequacy of random allocation concealment to respondents and completeness of follow-up data.
The quality of reporting in the reviewed studies was generally poor, with insufficient data to reach conclusions regarding the adequacy of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding of assessors.
Assessment of risk of bias was based on the adequacy of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, comparability of women in the different intervention groups for prognostically relevant factors at baseline, and handling of missing values (such as withdrawals and drop outs).
Risk of bias was based on the adequacy of reported allocation concealment, and was categorised as: low risk of bias (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes); or high risk of bias (open random allocation; unsealed or non-opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth, or method not stated).
Overall the studies were assessed as having a low or uncertain risk of bias based on the assessment of adequacy of concealment of allocations prior to assignment to groups.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com