Bias was assessed on the grounds of: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources.
The trials were assessed on the basis of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinding, completeness of follow-up, and the use of intention-to-treat analysis.
Each RCT was assessed on ten criteria (randomization method, allocation sequence concealment, participant blinding, outcome assessor blinding, outcome measurement, interventionist training, withdrawals, intent to treat analyses, clustering, and baseline characteristics) as having empirical evidence for biasing treatment effect estimates when not performed properly.
For pragmatic reasons, studies with mixed-sex and women-only samples that were used to derive comparison groups were assessed for quality based on the allocation concealment domain only.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V.. "Assessing the Allocation of Pork: Evidence from Congressional Earmarks". Co-authored with Erik Engstrom.
Here BBC Sport assesses the allocation and its implications, sport by sport.
Risk of bias of randomised studies was assessed for generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up.
Methodological quality was assessed based on the method of allocation generation (method of randomisation), allocation concealment (where the randomisation was carried out), blinding and losses to follow up.
We assessed the effect of allocation concealment on outcomes.
