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.