Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment in the studies identified for meta-analysis

From: Effect of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors on C-reactive protein in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study, year

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome assessment

Incomplete outcome data

Selective reporting

Other bias

Derosa, 2012a [20]

L

U

L

L

L

L

L

Asahara, 2013 [21]

L

U

H

L

L

L

L

Suzuki, 2014 [22]

L

U

H

H

L

L

L

Liu, 2013 [23]

L

U

H

H

L

L

L

Derosa, 2010 [24]

L

U

L

L

L

L

L

Nakamura, 2014 [25]

L

U

U

U

L

L

L

Derosas, 2012b [26]

L

U

L

L

L

L

L

Strozik, 2014 [27]

L

L

U

U

L

L

L

Zografou, 2015 [28]

L

U

U

U

L

L

L

Derosa, 2014 [29]

L

U

L

L

L

L

L

Kim, 2017 [30]

L

U

H

H

L

L

L

Mita, 2015 [31]

L

U

H

L

L

L

L

Boer, 2017 [32]

L

U

L

L

L

L

L

Yamada, 2017 [33]

L

U

H

L

L

L

L

Koren, 2012 [34]

L

U

H

H

L

L

L

Nogueira, 2014 [35]

L

U

H

L

L

L

L

  1. Criteria defined for quality assessment are based on the Cochrane guidelines
  2. Abbreviations: H High risk of bias, L Low risk of bias, U Unclear or unrevealed risk of bias