Risk of biasTable 2 shows the metho

Risk of biasTable 2 shows the methodological quality assessment ofindividual studies. For one study the corresponding author wascontacted to resolve ambiguity in data. The initial agreement ofthe reviewers on the total risk of bias assessment was 88% (77of 88 items), and Cohen’s Kappa (95% CI) was 0.79 (0.73–0.85). All disagreements were resolved in a consensusmeeting. Three studies were assessed as having a high risk ofbias and five studies were assessed as having a low risk ofbias. The most prevalent limitations were found in items aboutblinding (patient, care provider, outcome assessor), allocationconcealment and compliance.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

偏倚風險
表2所示的方法質量評估
個體的研究。對於一項研究的通訊作者是
接觸到數據解決歧義。最初的協議
上偏向評估的總風險評審為88％（77
88項），和Cohen的κ（95％CI）為0.79（0.73-
0.85）。所有分歧的共識得到解決
會議。三份研究報告進行了評估為具有高風險
的偏見和五份研究報告進行了評估為具有低風險
的偏見。最普遍的局限在項目中發現約
致盲（病人，護理提供者，結局評估者），分配
隱蔽性和合規性。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

One but the animals that are about to be extinct are Tigers

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

偏見風險
錶2顯示了
個別研究。其中一項研究的作者是
聯系以解决數據中的歧義。初始協定
偏倚評估的總風險為88%（77
在88個項目中），科恩的Kappa（95%可信區間）為0.79（0.73–
0.85分）。所有的分歧都以協商一致的管道解决了
開會。三項研究被評估為
偏倚和五項研究被評估為低風險
偏見。最普遍的限制是
盲法（患者、護理提供者、結果評估者）、分配
隱瞞和遵守。