Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of bias in randomized control trials

From: Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention

 

Abramsky (2014) [6]

Green (2015) [27]

Gupta (2013) [28]

Hidrobo (2013) [29]

Hossain (2014) [30]

Jewkes (2008) [31]

Kim (2007) [33]

Kim (2009) [34]

Kyegombe (2014) [35]

Pronyk (2006) [37]

Study design

 

 Prospective identification of intervention and comparison groups

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial1

Yes

Yes

 Baseline and follow-up measurement of intervention and comparison groups

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial

Yes

Yes

Selection bias

 

 Sample size calculation

Yes

Yes

Yes

NR

NR

Yes2

Yes3

NR

NR

Yes3

 Random sequence generation4

Yes

Yes + 5

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes+

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 Allocation concealment

Yes6

No

No

NR

NR

No

NR

NR

NR

NR

 Blinding of outcome assessment

NR

NR

No

NR

No

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Detection bias

 

 Consistent outcome measurement across intervention and comparison groups

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Analysis

 

 Statistical control for confounding

Yes

Yes

No7

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 Intention to treat analysis

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NR

NR

Yes

NR

Reporting bias

 

 Complete reporting of outcomes described in methods in results

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Reporting bias: conflicts of interest

 

 Implementation and analysis independent from funders

NR

NR

Yes

NR

NR

NR

Yes

Yes

NR

Yes

Reporting bias: adherence to recommendations for IPV research

 

 Age ≥15 for IPV questions

Yes

No

Yes

NR

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NR

NR

 IPV-specific training for interviewers

Yes

Yes

Yes

NR

Yes

NR

Yes

Yes

NR

Yes

 IPV referral information or protocols

Yes

NR

Yes

NR

Yes

NR

Yes

NR

Yes

NR

  1. NR not reported
  2. 1The authors did not report baseline measurement for the microfinance only intervention
  3. 2A sample size calculation was performed for HIV incidence, not IPV
  4. 3A sample size calculation was performed, but investigators were not able to enroll a sufficient number of clusters to adhere to minimum sample size calculations
  5. 4NR not reported, Yes = randomization reported, and Yes + = randomization and randomly generated allocation sequence reported
  6. 5A public lottery was used for WINGS v. control, and a randomization algorithm was used for W+ v. WINGS
  7. 6Interviewers were blinded to allocation at baseline, not follow-up
  8. 7The authors report that no covariates were included in intention to treat analyses because randomization was successful