Page | 22
Volume 1 Issue 1
|
January 2024
|
ORIENTAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND NATURAL SCIENCES
“Innovative World” Scientific Research Support Center www.inno-world.uz
Figure 1.
Assessment of risk of bias and quality of studies
The assessment of the risk of bias for each study was independently conducted
in duplicate by two authors (TC and NC or AB). This
evaluation utilized either
version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2), designed for assessing the risk
of bias in a single estimate of an intervention effect reported from a randomized
trial, or the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROBINS-I), which is employed for
evaluating the risk of bias in estimates of the comparative
effectiveness of
interventions from studies without randomization to allocate units to comparison
groups [15].
Any discrepancies in the risk of bias assessment were resolved through
discussion, with the involvement of a third author (SL) if necessary.
Data and statistical analysis
Data extraction from the list of eligible articles involved capturing publication
and study characteristics (study design, year published, authors, geographic
location), study population characteristics (age, sample size), details about the
therapy,
duration of follow-ups, and outcomes. Given the infeasibility of
conducting
a meta-analysis, the research team opted to present a narrative
summary of results derived from individual studies.
