Efficacy of extracorporeal shock waves therapy for erectile dysfunction treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 4 Risk of bias for included studies

ROBINS-I tool results for non-randomized studies
Authors	Confounding^a	Selection^b	Classification of interventions	Derivation from intended intervention	Missing data^c	Outcomes	Selective reporting^d	Overall
Qi et al. (2017) [35]	Critical	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Critical	Critical
Kalyvianakis et al. (2018) [34]	Critical	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Critical
RoB tool results for randomized studies
Authors	Random sequence (selection bias)	Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)	Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Other bias	Overall
Olsen et al. (2014) [24]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Yee et al. (2014) [33]	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	High
Kitrey et al. (2016) [32]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Fojecki et al. (2017) [26]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Sramkova et al. (2017) [27]	Low	Low	Low	High	High	Low	Low	High
Zewin et al. (2018) [37]	Low	Low	High	High	High	Low	Low	High
Baccaglini et al. (2019) [36]	Low	Low	High	High	High	Low	Low	High
Vinay (2019) [28]	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	High
Kim et al. (2020) [31]	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	High
Geyik (2021) [23]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	High
Ortac et al. (2021) [29]	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	High
Shendy et al. (2021) [25]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Motil et al. (2022) [30]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

^aRisk of bias from confounding was considered critical when confounding was not inherently controlled for (i.e. no or limited adjustment)
^bSelection bias was critical when selection into the study was very strongly related to intervention and outcome. This occurred when the study included men with diagnoses other than erectile dysfunction
^cRisk of bias due to missing data was considered moderate when there appeared to be a substantial amount of missing data. In these cases, the proportions of and reasons for missing data might differ across interventions groups. Of note, the majority of studies did not report on missing data. The risk of bias for these were classified as low but could also be considered “unknown”
^dThe studies with a moderate risk for selective outcome reporting were those that did not provided a pre-registered protocol

ISSN: 2051-4190