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)