Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of potential risk bias

From: The role of bone marrow on the mechanical properties of trabecular bone: a systematic review

Author (year)

Checklist questions

Score

Abstract

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Others

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Swanson et al. 1966

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

0

8/16

Pugh et al. 1973

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

★

11/16

Cater et al. 1977

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

0

11/16

Kazarian et al. 1977

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

11/16

Bryant 1983

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

★

0

★

★

9/16

Simkin et al. 1985

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

★

12/16

Simon et al. 1985

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

0

★

0

10/16

Bayant 1988

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

10/16

Ochoa, Heck, et al. 1991

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

★

12/16

Ochoa, Sanders, et al. 1991

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

★

11/16

Linde et al. 1993

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

13/16

Deligianni et al. 1994

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

11/16

Ochoa et al. 1997

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

11/16

Mitton et al. 1997

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

14/16

Lim et al. 1998

★

★

★

0

0

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

0

★

0

8/16

Kasra et al. 1998

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

★

0

★

0

9/16

Hong et al. 1998

★

★

★

0

0

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

★

0

★

0

7/16

Nuccion et al. 2001

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

11/16

Hong et al. 2001

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

0

9/16

Ochia et al. 2006

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

12/16

Chaari et al. 2007

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

0

10/16

Kasra et al. 2007

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

12/16

Pilcher et al. 2010

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

0

10/16

Halgrin et al. 2012

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

12/16

Birmingham et al. 2013

★

★

★

0

0

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

★

10/16

Haider et al. 2013

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

★

12/16

Sandino et al. 2014

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

13/16

Ma et al. 2014

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

13/16

Metzger et al. 2015

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

★

12/16

Sandino et al. 2015

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

★

12/16

Chen et al. 2015

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

14/16

Laouira et al. 2015

0

★

★

★

0

0

0

0

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

0

7/16

Metzger et al. 2015

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

13/16

Metzger et al. 2016

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

0

0

★

0

★

★

0

★

★

11/16

Sandino et al. 2017

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

14/16

Pense et al. 2017

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

★

★

★

★

★

★

★

14/16

Bravo et al. 2019

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

11/16

Rabiatul et al. 2022

★

★

★

★

★

★

0

★

0

0

0

★

★

★

★

★

12/16

Number of fulfilling each item

37

38

38

35

22

35

0

24

2

30

17

38

38

12

38

18

 

Percentage (%)

97.4

100

100

92.1

57.9

92.1

0

63.2

5.3

78.9

44.7

100

100

31.6

100

47.4

 
  1. The asterisk (★) means this item is fulfilled, and zero (0) means this item is not fulfilled. 1 = Was the abstract summarized informatively? 2 = Was the scientific background detailed? 3 = Were the objectives clearly stated? 4 = Did the study clearly describe the methodology? 5 = Were the characteristics of the sample clearly described? 6–1 = Were potential confounders clearly described (in vitro experiments)? 6–2 = Were the model parameters explicitly stated (computer model simulation)? 7 = Was the calculation of sample size reported? 8 = Was the data analysis described in detail? 9 = Did any missing data address in the study? 10 = Did the study report the sample numbers? 11 = Was the basic information of the sample described? 12 = Were the main findings of the study clearly described? 13 = Were the key results summarized? 14 = Were the limitations of the study discussed? 15 = Were the overall results explained in detail? 16 = Were the sources of funding for the study described?