Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk of bias assessments for each individual study and for each direct comparison against placebo

From: Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-analysis: a case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review

Comparison Study N Risks of bias RoB of each study and of comparison
Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participant Blinding of therapist Blinding of assessor Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Definition of recurrent mood episode Sponsorship
PLB vs LIT Melia 1970 11 U U L L L U L H H H
Cundall 1972 13 U U L L L L U H U M
Prien 1973a 31 U U L H L L H H L H
Prien 1973b 205 U U L H L L H H L H
Dunner 1976 40 U U L L L L H H U H
Fieve 1976 53 U U L L L L L H L M
Bowden 2000 185 U U L L L L L L L L
Bowden 2003 116 U U L L L L L H L M
Calabrese 2003 242 U U L L L L L H L M
Amsterdam 2010 53 U U L L L L L L L L
Weisler 2011 764 L L L L L H L L L M
PLB vs VPA Pooled            H
Bowden 2000 281 U U L L L L L L H M
PLB vs LTG Pooled            M
Calabrese 2000 182 U U L L L L L H H H
Bowden 2003 129 U U L L L L L H H H
Calabrese 2003 292 U U L L L L L H H H
Koyama 2011 103 U U L L L L L H H H
PLB vs IMP Pooled            H
Prien 1973a 26 U U L H L L H H L H
Kane 1982 12 U U L L L L L L L L
PLB vs LIT + IMP Pooled            H
Kane 1982 13 U U L L L L L L L L
PLB vs ARP Pooled            L
Keck 2007 161 U U L L L L L L H M
PLB vs OLZ Pooled            M
Tohen2006 361 U U L L L L L L H M
Vieta 2012 266 U U L L L L L L L L
PLB vs QTP Pooled            M
Weisler 2011 808 L L L L L H L L H H
Young2012 585 U U L L L L L L H M
PLB vs RisLAI Pooled            H
Quiroz2010 275 L L L L L L L L H M
Vieta 2012 267 U U L L L L L L H M
PLB vs PAL Pooled            M
Bewaerts 2012 300 L L L L L L L L H M
LIT vs VPA Pooled            M
Bowden 2000 278 U U L L L L L L H M
Calabrese 2005 60 U U L L L L L L L L
Geddes 2010 220 L L H H L L L H L H
LIT vs CBZ Pooled            H
Coxhead 1992 31 U U L L L L L H H H
Kleindienst 2000 171 L L H H H H L U L H
Hartong 2003 53 U U L L L L L L H M
LIT vs LTG Pooled            M
Bowden 2003 105 U U L L L L L H H H
Calabrese 2003 292 U U L L L L L H H H
LIT vs IMP Pooled            H
Prien 1973a 31 U U L H L L H H L H
Kane 1982 9 U U L L L L L L L L
Prien 1984 78 U U L H L L L L L M
LIT vs LIT + IMP Pooled            H
Kane 1981 75 U U L L L L H L U M
Kane 1982 10 U U L L L L L L L L
Prien 1984 78 U U L H L L L L L M
LIT vs LIT + VPA Pooled            M
Geddes 2010 220 L L H H L L L H L H
LIT vs LIT + OXC Pooled            H
Vieta 2008 55 L U L L L L L L H M
LIT vs OLZ Pooled            M
Tohen2005 431 U U L L L L L L H M
LIT vs QTP Pooled            M
Weisler 2011 768 L L L L L H L L H H
VPA vs LIT + VPA Pooled            H
Geddes 2010 220 L L H H L L L H L H
VPA vs VPA + ARP Pooled            H
Woo 2011 83 U U L L L H L L H H
LTG vs ARP + LTG Pooled            H
Carlson 2012 351 U U L L L L L L H M
IMP vs LIT + IMP Pooled            M
Kane 1982 11 U U L L L L L L L L
Prien 1984 72 U U L H L L L L L M
OLZ vs RisLAI Pooled            M
Vieta 2012 263 U U L L L L L L H M
Pooled            M
  1. L low risk of bias, M moderate risk of bias, H high risk of bias, U unclear risk of bias
  2. References to studies can be found in the original paper [4]
  3. ARP aripiprazole, CBZ carbamazepine, FLX fluoxetine, IMP imipramine, LIT lithium, LTG lamotrigine, OLZ olanzapine, OXC oxcarbazepine, PAL paliperidone, PLB placebo, QTP quetiapine, RisLAI risperidone long-acting injection, VPA valproate