The effectiveness and safety of paediatric prehospital pain management: a systematic review

Table 10 Risk of bias assessment findings based on the respective research designs checklist of the JBI tool

Prevalence Cross-Sectional:
Study ID	1. Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?	2. Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?	3. Was the sample size adequate?	4. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?	5. Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?	6. Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?	7. Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?	8. Was there appropriate statistical analysis?	9. Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?	Overall appraisal
Bredmose P. [35] 2009	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Not applicable	Include
Karlsen, A. P. H. [32] 2013	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Include
Murphy, A. P. [37] 2017	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Include

Analytical Cross-Sectional:
Study ID	1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?	2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?	3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?	4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?	5. Were confounding factors identified?	6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?	7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?	8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?	Overall appraisal
Bendall, J. C [36] 2011	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Include
Jennings, P. A [33] 2015	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Include
Lord, B. [31] 2016	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Include

Case Series:
Study ID	1. Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series?	2. Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series?	3. Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?	4. Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants?	5. Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants?	6. Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study?	7. Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?	8. Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported?	9. Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information?	10. Was statistical analysis appropriate?	Overall appraisal
Babl F.E. [30] 2006	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Include

Cohort Design:
Study ID	1. Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population?	2. Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups?	3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?	4. Were confounding factors identified?	5. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?	6. Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)?	7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?	8. Was the follow-up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur?	9. Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored?	10. Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?	11. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?	Overall appraisal
Jacobs Ian G. [34] 2010	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Not applicable	Unclear	Yes	Include

ISSN: 1757-7241