Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment for the 18 studies, using Cochrane method

From: Assessing the effects of interventions for Aedes aegypti control: systematic review and meta-analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials

First author & year Intervention Blinding of participants & personnel Blinding of outcome assessment Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting Other sources of bias Summary of risk of bias assessmenta
Camargo (2002) [36] Chemical control 1 2 2 2 2 2
Kroeger (2006) MA [37] Chemical control 1 2 1 1 2 1
Lenhart (2008) MA [38] Chemical control 1 2 2 2 2 2
Ocampo (2009) MA [39] Chemical control 1 2 2 1 2 2
Rizzo (2012) [40] Chemical control 1 2 2 1 2 2
Vanlerberghe (2013) MA [41] Chemical control 1 2 1 1 2 1
Quintero (2015) MA [42] Chemical control 1 2 1 1 2 1
Che-Mendoza (2015) [43] Chemical control 1 2 2 1 2 2
Kittayapong (2012) MA [44] Biological control 1 2 2 1 2 2
Espinoza-Gomez (2002) [45] Community participation 1 2 2 1 2 2
Vanlerberghe (2009) MA [46] Community participation 1 2 1 1 2 1
Arunachalam (2012) MA [47] Community participation 1 2 1 1 2 1
Abeyewickreme (2012) [48] Community participation 1 2 2 2 2 2
Castro (2012) [49] Community participation 1 2 1 1 2 1
Caprara (2015) [50] Community participation 1 2 2 1 2 2
Mitchell-Foster (2015) [51] Community participation 1 2 1 1 2 1
Basso (2015) MA [52] Community participation 1 2 2 1 2 2
Andersson (2015) MA [53] Community participation 1 1 1 1 2 1
  1. 1 = Low risk of bias; 2 = Unclear risk of bias; 3 = High risk of bias.
  2. aThe summary figure is the median of the five individual elements
  3. MA = Included in the meta-analysis