You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of substantial variation and risk of bias

From: Prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis of the symptom cough in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Domain Study A: Substantial variation in selection of patients and GPs1 A: Risk of bias in selection of patients and GPs1 B: Risk of bias in data collection and patient flow1 C: Risk of bias in diagnostic work-up2 D: Risk of bias in prognostic work-up3
Ajmi 2011 [16] low ? low n.r. n.r.
Albert 2011 [17] high high ? n.r. n.r.
BEACH low low low n.r. n.r.
Ben Abdelaziz 2004 [19] low ? low n.r. n.r.
Coenen 2004 [20] ? low ? n.r. ?
CONTENT low/?* ? ? high n.r.
French 2005 [23] low high low ? n.r.
GRACE ?/high* low low/?* low/?/high* ?/high*
Hamre 2005 [35] ? low low n.r. low
Harding 1980 [36] ? low low n.r. n.r.
Hofmans-Okkes 1993 International Study ? low low n.r. n.r.
Hofmans-Okkes 1993 Dutch Study ? ? low n.r. n.r.
Hull 1969 [38] ? high low n.r. n.r.
Liu 2017 [39] low high low n.r. n.r.
Martin 1984 [40] high high low n.r. n.r.
Mash 2012 [41] high low low n.r. n.r.
Molony 2016 [42] low high ? n.r. n.r.
Morrell 1971/1972 [43, 44] high high low high n.r.
Munyati 2005 [45] high high low low n.r.
NAMCS low low/?* low/?* high n.r.
Nantha 2014 [48] low high ? ? n.r.
Njalsson 1992 [49] low low ? n.r. n.r.
Robertson 1981 [50] low high low n.r. n.r.
SESAM 2 low/high* low low high n.r.
Silva 1998 [53] low low low n.r. n.r.
Stefanoff 2014 [54] ? ? ? ? n.r.
TRANSITION low low low high n.r.
Verzantcoort 2018 [56] high low low n.r. n.r.
Wong 2016 [57] ? low ? n.r. low/?*
Woolnough 1985 [58] ? high ? low n.r.
Worrall 2008 [59] low high low high n.r.
  1. Legend: ? = unclear, n.r. = not relevant, 1 = refers to all included studies, 2 = refers solely to studies that present data on the underlying aetiologies of cough patients, 3 = refers solely to studies that present prognostic outcomes, * = varying assessments for different publications or different aetiological /prognostic categories