Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
From: Reducing risk of bias in interventional studies during their design and conduct: a scoping review
Article | Study design | Population | Sample size | Type of risk of bias targeted | Intervention | Outcome | Implementation phase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Auerbach 2013 [30] | RCT | Spinal surgery patients | 322 | Flaws in outcome measurement | Clinical Events Committee (CEC) | The CEC reclassified the severity of 37% of the adverse events and the reasons for their occurrence, avoiding the influence of the personal bias of the researcher on the results of the study | Outcome measurement |
Bhandari 2008 [31] | RCT | Adults with tibial shaft fracture | 1319 | Missing data (loss to follow-up) | A three-tiered intervention strategy to improve patient recruitment methods, reduce the loss of patients at the follow-up stage and actively counsel patients who may drop out | Only 6% of patients dropped out of the study mid-stream, significantly lower than the drop-out rate in randomized controlled trials of trauma patients | Mobilisation of research resources |
High 2024 [32] | RCT | Participant in an online smoking cessation trial | 204 | Missing data (measure completion rates) | Provide appropriate monetary incentives to participants in randomised controlled studies. | The £20 incentive group required less manual follow-up than the £10 incentive group (OR = 0.53, p < 0.05). The time taken to complete the questionnaire was faster and the quality of the questionnaire responses was higher in the £20 incentive group. | Follow-up phase |