Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality and risk of bias assessment for randomized studies

From: Cardiac shock-wave therapy in the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Wang Y. 2012 [24]

Zhao L. 2015 [74]

Yang P. 2012 [76]

Leibowitz D. 2012 [77]

Schmid J.P. 2013 [78]

Yang P. 2013 [79]

Random sequence generation

high risk

low risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

Allocation concealment

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

Blinding of participants

high risk

low risk

high risk

low risk

low risk

high risk

Blinding of personnel who provide CSWT treatment

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

Blinding of outcome assessment

unclear risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

Incomplete outcome data

high risk

high risk

low risk

high risk

high risk

low risk

Selective reporting

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

Blinding of CWST procedure

high risk

low risk

high risk

low risk

low risk

high risk

Endpoints were based on sample size calculation

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

high risk

Complete testing in both groups

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

low risk

  1. CSWT cardiac shock wave therapy