Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias in epidemiological studies of workplace social distancing, 2000–2017*

From: Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review

First author, year published Outcome Confounding Selection Intervention classification Intervention deviations Missing data Outcome measurement Reported results Overall
Rousculp, 2010 [27] Attend work with severe ILI Moderatea Low Low Low Low Moderateb Seriousc Serious
Kumar, 2012 [28] ILI Seriousd Low Moderatee Low Moderatef Moderateb Low Critical
Lee, 2010 [29] Seroconversion to 2009 influenza A(H1N1) Seriousd Low Low Low Low Low Low Serious
  1. Abbreviations: ILI influenza-like illness
  2. *Assessed using the Risk of Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Risk of bias for each domain is classified into four categories: low (study is comparable to a well performed randomized trial), moderate (study is sound for a non-randomized study but cannot be considered comparable to a well performed randomized trial), serious (study has some important problems), and critical (study is too problematic to provide any useful evidence on the effects of intervention)
  3. aA nonrandomized study is rarely at low risk of bias for confounding
  4. bSubjective outcome self-reported by participants who were aware of the intervention group
  5. cResults for attending work with ILI symptoms of any severity are not reported
  6. dInadequate or no adjustment
  7. eIntervention status was determined retrospectively
  8. fResponse rate was 56%