Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias

From: Prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis of the symptom dizziness in primary care – a systematic review

Study Domain A: selection of patients and GPs Domain B: Data collection and patient flow Domain C. diagnostic work-up Domain D: prognostic work-up
BEACH low low n.r. n.r.
Bird 1998 ? ? high n.r.
CONTENT low low n.r. n.r.
DNSGP-2 low low high n.r.
Ekvall 2004 high high n.r. n.r.
Ekvall 2005 high high high n.r.
Fink 2007 high low n.r. n.r.
Garrigues 2008 low low n.r. n.r.
Gerber 1992 high low n.r. n.r.
Hanley 2002 low low ? n.r.
Harding 1980 low low n.r. n.r.
Hopkins 1989 high high n.r. n.r.
Jayarajan 2003 high high n.r. n.r.
Kroenke 1989 high high high high
Kroenke 1998 low low n.r. ?
Kwong 2005 ? high high n.r.
Lawson 1999 – prev. ? low n.r. n.r.
Lawson 1999 – aet. low low low n.r.
Maarsingh 2010 low low low low
Mash 2012 low low n.r. n.r.
MedViP –prev. low high n.r. n.r.
MedViP –aet. high high high n.r.
Morrell 1972 ? low high n.r.
NAMCS low low n.r. n.r.
PCD low low ? ?
Rieger 2014 high high n.r. n.r.
Sczepanek 2011 low low high low
Sicras 2007 high high n.r. n.r.
Transition Project low low n.r. n.r.
Wun 2000 low low n.r. n.r.
Yardley 1998 high high high low
Yardley 2004 – aet. high high high n.r.
Yardley 2004 – prog. high low n.r. low
Yardley 2012 high low n.r. low
  1. Risk of bias was rated as low, high or unclear (?)
  2. n.r Not relevant, because the respective study provided no data in regard to aetiologies and/ or prognosis
  3. prevalence, aet Aetiology, prog Prognosis