Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 21, 2013; 19(31): 5165-5173
Published online Aug 21, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i31.5165
Published online Aug 21, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i31.5165
Table 3 Risk of bias assessment
| Study | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Blinding of outcome assessment | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting |
| Teoh et al[12] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Lee et al[13] | Low risk | Uncertain | High risk | High risk | Uncertain | Low risk |
| Perez et al[14] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Uncertain | High risk |
| St Peter et al[15] | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Sozutek et al[16] | Low risk | Uncertain | High risk | High risk | Uncertain | High risk |
| Frutos et al[17] | Low risk | Uncertain | High risk | High risk | Low risk | High risk |
-
Citation: Cai YL, Xiong XZ, Wu SJ, Cheng Y, Lu J, Zhang J, Lin YX, Cheng NS. Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy
vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(31): 5165-5173 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i31/5165.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i31.5165