Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias from included non-randomised studies

From: A systematic review of interventions in the early course of bipolar disorder I or II: a report of the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Taskforce on early intervention

Study

Sub-group analysis or outcome

Bias due to confounding

Bias in selection of participants

Bias in classification of interventions

Bias due to deviations from intended interventions

Bias due to missing data

Bias in outcome measure-ment

Bias in selection of reported results

Overall bias

Comparisons in early course populations

Bromet et al. (2005)

–

Serious

Low

Moderate

Serious

Low

Low

Serious

Serious

Craig et al. (2004)

–

Serious

Low

Moderate

Serious

Low

Low

Serious

Serious

Hafeman et al. (2020)

–

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Serious

Serious

Kessing et al. (2011)

–

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Kessing et al. (2012)

–

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

MacNeil (2021)

–

Serious

Moderate

Moderate

Serious

Low

Low

Serious

Serious

Mander (1986)

 

Treatment episode

Serious

Serious

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate

Serious

Persons prescribed lithium

Serious

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Serious

Comparisons of early vs late course of illness

Kessing et al. (2014b)

–

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Berk et al. (2011)

 

Mania remission acute mania studies

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Mania remission maintenance studies

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Mania relapse

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Depression remission acute depression studies

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Depression remission maintenance studies

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Depression relapse

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Moderate