Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2016; 4(4): 88-94
Published online Aug 26, 2016. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i4.88
Published online Aug 26, 2016. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i4.88
Oyabu et al[23] | Kubo et al [24] | Itoh et al [25] | |
1 Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized? | Y | Y | Y |
2 And if so, was the randomization list concealed (blinded or masked) to those deciding on patient eligibility for the study? | Y | Y | - |
3 Were all patients analysed in the groups to which they were randomized (was an “intention to treat” analysis used)? | Y | N | Y |
4 Were patients in the treatment and control groups similar with respect to known prognostic factors? | Y | Y | Y |
5 Were patients, clinicians and outcome assessors kept “blind” to which treatment was being received? | - | - | - |
6 Was follow-up complete? | Y | Y | Y |
- Citation: Ukai T, Shikata S, Kassai R, Takemura Y. Daikenchuto for postoperative adhesive small bowel obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2016; 4(4): 88-94
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v4/i4/88.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v4.i4.88