Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias (ROBIS) assessment results

From: Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

 

Study eligibility criteria

Identification and selection of studies

Data collection and study appraisal

Synthesis and findings

Risk of bias in the review

Adiewere 2018 [13]

High

Unclear

Unclear

High

High

Ahmad Sharoni (2016) [29]

High

High

Unclear

High

High

Ahmed (2020) [38]

High

High

High

High

High

Alkahoon (2020) [25]

Low

Unclear

Low

Unclear

Unclear

Arad (2011) [18]

High

High

Unclear

High

High

Binning (2019) [27]

Unclear

Low

High

Low

High

Blanchette (2020) [39]

Unclear

Low

Low

High

High

Bus (2015) [32]

Low

Unclear

High

High

High

Collings (2020) [40]

Unclear

Unclear

Low

High

High

Crawford (2020) [14]

Low

Unclear

Low

Low

Unclear

Dorresteijn (2014) [15]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Dy (2018) [41]

Unclear

Unclear

Low

Low

Unclear

Ena (2020) [26]

Low

Unclear

Low

Low

Unclear

Hazenberg (2019) [42]

High

High

High

High

High

He (2013) [17]

Unclear

High

Unclear

High

High

Healy (2013) [34]

Low

High

Unclear

Low

High

Heuch (2016) [28]

High

High

Unclear

High

High

Hoogeveen (2015) [16]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Kaltenthaler (1998) [22]

High

High

Unclear

Unclear

High

McGloin (2021) [24]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Mason (1999) [21]

High

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

High

Matos (2018) [44]

High

High

Low

High

High

Maciejewski (2004) [36]

Unclear

High

Unclear

Low

High

Mayfield (2000) [37]

High

High

High

High

High

O’Meara (2000) [19]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Norman (2020) [23]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Paton (2011) [35]

Unclear

Unclear

Low

High

High

Da Silva (2020) [43]

High

High

High

High

High

Spencer (2000) [20]

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

van Netten (2020) [30]

Low

Low

Unclear

Low

Unclear