Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment of observational studies

From: Contraceptive use and contraceptive counselling interventions for women of reproductive age with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Item 7

Item 8

Item 9

Total

Abelman et al. 2020 [25]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Castro-Sanchez et al. 2018 [35]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Cutler et al. 2016 [36]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

4

Dominick et al. 2015 [18]

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

8

Franca et al. [37]

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

3

Guth et al. 2016 [38]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Hadnott et al. 2019 [23]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

7

Johansen et al. 2017 [39]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

5

Knight et al. 2014 [40]

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

2

Lakhdissi et al. 2017 [41]

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

2

Madrigal et al. 2019 [42]

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

4

Maslow et al. 2014 [43]

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

7

Massarotti et al. 2021 [34]

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

4

McLean et al. 2014 [44]

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

3

Mody et al. 2019 [26]

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

6

Patel et al. 2015 [45]

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

3

Patel et al. 2009 [33]

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

3

Quinn et al. 2014 [46]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

7

  1. Item 1: Was the sample representative of the target population?
  2. Item 2: Were the study participants recruited in an appropriate way?
  3. Item 3: Was the sample size adequate?
  4. Item 4: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
  5. Item 5: Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
  6. Item 6: Were objective, standard criteria used for the measurement of the condition?
  7. Item 7: Was the condition measured reliably?
  8. Item 8: Was there an appropriate statistical analysis?
  9. Item 9: Are all important confounding factors/subgroups identified and accounted?