Skip to main content

Table 1 Summaries of the quality of evidence of each study

From: Treatment in canine epilepsy – a systematic review

  Study Groups Study design Overall `risk of bias Disease definitions (characterization) Study groups size
1. Boothe et al.[11] A bRCTs Low/Moderate Poorly Moderate
2. EMEA pseudo-trial[13] Unclear Good
3. Tipold et al.[14] Poorly Good
4. Muñana et al.[12] Poorly Moderate
5. Schwartz-Porsche et al.[15] nbRCT Moderate/High Unclear Moderate
6. Chung et al.[24] B UCTs Moderate/High Well Small
7. Cunningham et al.[29] Well Small
8. Dewey et al.[18] Fairly Very small
9. Dewey et al.[19] Fairly Small
10. Kiviranta[17] Fairly Small
11. Platt et al.[22] Poorly Small
12. Pearce[32] Fairly Small
13. Volk et al.[16] Well Small
14. Schwartz-Porsche[28] Well Small
15. Schwartz-Porsche et al.[30] Poorly Moderate
16. Steinberg[23]     Unclear Small
17. Rieck et al.[27] High Fairly Small
18. Govendir et al.[21] Poorly Small
19. Von Klopmann et al.[20] Fairly Small
20. Löscher et al.[26] Fairly Small
21. Morton et al.[31] Unclear Small
22. Nafe[25] Fairly Moderate
23. Heynold[36] Retrospective case series studies Fairly Moderate
24. Podell et al.[33] Fairly Moderate
25. Ruehlmann et al.[35] Moderate/High Fairly Very small
26. Trepanier et al.[34] Unclear Good
Löscher et al.[26](retrospective part) As a part of trials Fairly Moderate
Rieck et al.[27](retrospective part) Fairly Moderate
Volk et al.[16](retrospective part) Well Very Small
  1. bRCTs, blinded randomized clinical trials; CTs, clinical trials; nbRCTs, non-blinded randomized clinical trials; NRCTs, non-randomized clinical trials.