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
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us