Skip to main content

Table 1 Details of study design, risk of bias, disease characterization and study group size

From: Systematic review of antiepileptic drugs’ safety and effectiveness in feline epilepsy

  Study design Risk of bias Disease definitions (characterization) Study groups size
Blinding of outcome assessment Randomization allocation concealment Incomplete outcome data Selective reporting other sources of bias
Engel et al. [20]study 1 bRELAS low low high low high high; company funding well very small
Engel et al. [20] study 2 low low high low high high; company funding well very small
Lowrie et al. [26] nbRCT high low high high low unclear poorly good
Sawchuk et al. [47] nbRELAS high low low low high unclear clear small
Carnes et al. [42] high low high low high unclear clear small
Engel et al. [20] study 3 UCT high high high low high high; company funding well very small
Dewey et al. [41] high high high low high high; conference abstract unclear very small
Ukai et al. [51] high high high high high unclear well very small
Volk et al. [36] high high high low low high; conference abstract well very small
Bailey et al. [40] high high high high high unclear fairly small
Roye et al. [48] UELAS high high high low high unclear unclear very small
Barnard et al. [43] high high high low high unclear; conference abstract clear very small
Solomon et al. [34] high high high low high unclear unclear very small
Hasegawa et al. [50] high high high low high unclear unclear very small
Pellegrini et al. [53] high high high low high unclear unclear very small
Cochrane, Black et al. [32] high high high low high unclear clear very small
Cochrane, Parent et al. [33] high high high low high unclear clear very small
Boothe et al. [21] high high high low high low clear very small
Cautela et al. [52] high high high low high high; conference abstract clear very small
Gasper et al. [35] high high high high high unclear clear small
Dreimann [55] high high high low high High; abstract; dissertation unclear small
Schwartz-Porsche and Kaiser [44] retrospective case series NA unclear moderate
Brewer et al. [49] unclear very small
Center et al. [45] unclear small
Hughes et al. [46] clear very small
Wagner [38] unclear moderate
Boothe et al. [21] unclear small
Volk et al. [28] well small
Schriefl et al. [4] fairly small
Bertolani et al. [37] unclear very small
Pakozdy et al. [27] fairly moderate
Finnerty et al. [25] well small
Wahle et al. [31] well small
Ducote et al. [23] Case reports NA NA very small
Zoran et al. [54] clear very small
Lieser and Schwedes 2016 NA very small
Boydell [29] well very small
Baho et al. [22] NA very small
Klang et al. [39] well very small
Cuff et al. [30] well very small
  1. Sample size; >50 subjects per group (‘good’ number), 20–50 subjects (‘moderate’ number), 10–19 subjects (‘small’ number) and (d) <10 subjects (‘very small’ number)