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