Paper | Selection bias | Information bias | Recall bias | Assessment of certainty in body of evidence |
---|---|---|---|---|
Li et al. 2016 [8] | Not likely. All patients were selected based upon objective measurements of Hepatitis B infection or Liver fluke infection | Not likely, objective measurements of Hepatitis B infection or Liver fluke infection are standard and not subjective (i.e., there are clear markers of infection) | N/A | Generalizability could be an issue because patients with these factors were excluded from analysis: “those co-infected with HIV, hepatitis A, C, D and E, those with type I and type II diabetes, those co-infected with Schistosoma japonicum, or Schistosoma mansoni or other parasites, and those with alcoholic liver, autoimmune diseases, cholestasis, serious heart diseases and pregnant women.” |
Shin et al. 1996 [22] | Not likely. All patients were selected based upon objective measurements of Hepatitis B infection. Assessment of liver fluke infection was not described, but selection based upon observation in stool samples is unlikely related to known status of Hepatitis infection | Liver fluke infection could have been misclassified. Details were not described in Methods section | N/A | Relative risk estimates are very high, but the confidence intervals are wide. A larger sample size could have strengthened the certainty of relationships |
Shi et al. 2017 [21] | Not likely. All patients were selected based upon objective measurements of Hepatitis B infection or Liver fluke infection | Although the study used objective measurements of Hepatitis B infection or Liver fluke infection, there was not a true control group. Of the 20 carcinoma patients, only one patient was not co-infected with liver fluke | N/A | Small sample size and lack of a control group limits certainty of evidence |