Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessment of included studies

From: Affective lability as a prospective predictor of subsequent bipolar disorder diagnosis: a systematic review

ROB scale and accepted criteria

Akiskal et al. 1995

Angst et al. 2003

Egeland et al. 2012

Gan et al. 2011

Hafeman et al. 2017

Ratheesh et al. 2015

Salvatore et al. 2013

Tohen et al. 2012

DeGeorge et al. 2014

Kochman et al. 2005

Sperry et al. 2020

Selection

 Exposed cohort is representative of the average person without BD

 Non-exposed cohort is drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Exposure ascertained through secure record or structured interview

*

*

*

*

 Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Comparability

 Study controls for family history of BD or additional factor

**

*

**

*

Outcome

 Assessment of outcome uses structured clinical assessment or record linkage

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 Follow-up long enough for outcome to occur (5 + years)?

*

*

*

*

 Adequacy of follow up of cohorts (> 80% follow up or description provided of those lost)

*

*

*

Total (max = 9)

6

5

5

5

7

3

5

5

3

3

3

  1. Risk of bias (ROB) assessment for all included studies, using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. The criteria employed for ROB ratings are described in text and Additional file 1
  2. *Method accepted. – Method not accepted