Skip to main content

Table 7 Risk of bias and individual quality of the studies

From: Comparison of sealer penetration of sonic activation versus conventional needle irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Authors

Q.1

Q.2

Q.3

Q.4

Q.5

Q.6

Q.7

Q.8

Q.9

Q.10

Q.11

Q.12

Q.13

‘Yes’(n)

Risk of bias

Akcay et al. [30]

U

Y

U

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

9

Low

Ateş et al. [24]

U

U

U

U

U

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

6

Moderate

Bharti et al. [25]

N

Y

U

U

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

U

7

Moderate

Bolles et al. [10]

Y

U

U

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

10

Low

Ch et al. [26]

U

N

N

U

U

U

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

U

5

High

Generali et al. [27]

U

Y

U

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

U

8

Low

Machado et al. [28]

U

U

Y

U

U

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

7

Moderate

Uğur Aydin et al. [17]

Y

U

N

U

Y

U

Y

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

Y

8

Low

Yilmaz et al. [29]

U

Y

N

U

N

Y

Y

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

N

7

Moderate

  1. Questions 1 to 13 are described in detail in ‘Risk of bias assessment’ of the method section. Yes/No/Unclear respectively represented by “Y”, “N”, “U”. The bias risk of the study was respectively classifified as ‘high’, ‘moderate’ and ‘low’, when the number of yes is less than or equal to 5, between 6 and 8, and greater than or equal to 8