127 Safety of HSG with oil-based contrast medium 5 Supplementary Table 6. (Continued) 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. Steiner, 2003 RCT Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear High risk High risk Unclear Low risk 4 Moderate risk Stoll, 1956 Retrospective cohort Unclear Unclear Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 5 Moderate risk Tan, 2019 Prospective cohort Low risk Low risk Moderate risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk 2 Low risk Vara, 1950 Retrospective cohort Low risk Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 5 Moderate risk Volk, 1936 Retrospective cohort High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear High risk High risk Unclear Unclear 6 Moderate risk Witwer, 1930 Retrospective cohort Unclear Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 6 Moderate risk Woltz, 1958 Cohort not spec Unclear High risk Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 5 Moderate risk Zachariae, 1955 Cohort not spec High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk High risk Unclear Low risk 4 Moderate risk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw