Alendronate versus Raloxifene for Postmenopausal Women: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Head-to-Head Randomized Controlled Trials

Table 2

Methodological quality of eligible randomised controlled trials.

Study	Randomized adequately^a	Allocation concealed^b	Blinding^c	Balance inbaseline	Advoiding selective reporting	Similar cofactors^d	(%) Loss to followup (Aln/Rlx)^e	ITT analysis^f	Quality^g
Iwamoto et al., 2008 [15]	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	18%/14.8%	No	Moderate
Johnell et al., 2002 [16]	Adequately	Yes	Double Blinded	Yes	Yes	Yes	total: 17.2%	Yes	High
Luckey et al., 2004 [17]	Adequately	Yes	Double Blinded	Yes	Yes	Yes	19.7%/17.2%	Yes	High
Muscoso et al., 2004 [18]	Unclear	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	0	Yes	Moderate
Recker et al., 2007 [19]	Adequately	Yes	Double Blinded	Yes	Yes	Yes	2.2%/1.7%	Yes	High
Sambrook et al., 2004 [20]	Adequately	Yes	Double Blinded	Yes	Yes	Yes	12%/14%	Yes	High
Sanad et al., 2011 [21]	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	23.9%/29.5%	No	Moderate

^aThe trials could get an “Yes” if their randomization schedules were explicitly described.
^bOnly the trials which mentioned that they concealed the process of patients assignment could get a “Yes.”
^cThe trials were considered as “Double Blinded” if a placebo was adequately adopted to blind both patients and investigators.
^dIn all the included studies, patients in both groups took calcium and vitamine D as supplementations equally.
^eLess than 20% loss to follow-up rate was considered acceptable.
^fITT: intention to treat. Explicit description of the loss to followup was provided in all the included trials, but only which mentioned ITT analysis of the missing data could get a “Yes.”
^gThe frequences of positive responses >5 means “High”; 4 or 5 means “Moderate”; ≦3 means “Low.”