123 Safety of HSG with oil-based contrast medium 5 Supplementary Table 6. Risk of bias assessment First author, year of publication Study type 1. Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables 2. Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? 3. Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR, was a census undertaken? 4. Was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal? 5. Were data collected directly from the subjects (as opposed to a proxy)? 6. Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? 7. Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validity (if necessary)? 8. Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? 9. Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate? 10. Summary of the overall risk of study bias: 0-3 Low risk, 4-6 moderate risk, 7-9 High risk. Alper, 1986 RCT Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk 1 Low risk Bang, 1950 Retrospective cohort Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk Unclear High risk High risk Unclear Low risk 5 Moderate risk Barqawi, 2007 Retrospective cohort Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk 1 Low risk Bateman, 1980 Cohort not spec High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear High risk Unclear Low risk 4 Moderate risk Bergin, 1951 Retrospective cohort Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear High risk High risk Unclear Low risk 8 High risk Brent, 2006 Prospective cohort Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk 1 Low risk Brown, 1949 Cohort not spec Unclear Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 6 Moderate risk Buytaert, 1977 Retrospective cohort Low risk Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear High risk High risk Unclear Low risk 6 Moderate risk Dreyer, 2017 RCT Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk High risk Low risk Low risk 2 Low risk Drukman, 1951 Retrospective cohort High risk Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 6 Moderate risk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw