Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of Bias summary according to ROBINS-I in the non-randomized studies

From: Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a systematic review

1stauthor,
year, study design
Bias due to confounding Bias in selection of participants into the study Bias in classification of interventions Bias due to deviations from intended interventions Bias due to missing data Bias in measurement of outcomes Bias in selection of the reported results Overall bias
Haggård, 2015, Sweden,
Controlled cohort retrospective study [31]
Low risk
Controlled statistically for baseline recidivism risk that might confound the association between treatment status and recidivism
Low risk
All participants who would have been eligible for the target trial were included in the study
Low risk
The intervention group (IG) and control group (CG) are clearly defined. Information about intervention status was obtained retrospectively
Low risk
Followed an Intention-To-Treat (ITT)-approach.
Other co-interventions that might have affected the outcome were balanced across IG and CG.
The assessor extracting data was blinded to recidivism data
Low risk
Attrition from treatment was described (IG 27%).
The study had complete outcome measurement based on registry information
Low risk
Retrospective study with already reported outcomes
Moderate
Performed the study after the intervention was finished. There is no published protocol, making it difficult to know if the outcomes were pre-defined
Moderate
Boira,2013, Spain,
Quasi-experimental study [2]
Low risk
The participants were selected from the target population.
The study had controlled for possible baseline confounding, and the three groups are comparable for sociodemographic characteristics
Low risk
All participants who would have been eligible for the target trial were included in the study
Low risk
The four groups are clearly defined
No information
Insufficient information with respect to ITT-analysis and adherence to interventions
Moderate
There is unclear information about recidivism data on the intervention groups at 18-months follow up (the outcome is presented as total participants, N = 44, making it impossible to separate the effects between the four groups status).
Low attrition.
It is unclear how missing data was analysed
Moderate
Lack of blind outcome assessments.
The methods of outcome assessment were comparable across three of the four groups for pre- and post-assessments. Errors of measurement occurs at 18-months follow-up (non-differential measurements are presented with respect to conviction)
Serious
There is no published protocol, making it difficult to know if the outcomes were pre-defined
The lack of differentiation between treatment modalities in presenting the results at 18-month follow-up makes it difficult to judge whether the observed effect is associated to group treatment
Serious