Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 1;57(3):180–190.

Table 2.

GRADE for rating the quality of evidence (N = 13)

Studies

(design)

Limits

(risk of bias)

Inconsistent

Indirect

Imprecise

Publication bias

Magnitude of effect

Dose–response

Residual confounding

Quality of evidence

Yoneyama et al. 199624 (RCT)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

No CI

Yes Mean SD

N

N

High

Adachi et al. 2002 25 (RCT)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

High

Yoneyama et al. 2002 26 (RCT)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

Yes CI

N

N

Higher

Adachi et al. 2007 27

(Cross-sectional)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

Moderate

Morino et al. 2014 28 (RCT)

No COI

N

N

N

N

Yes CI

N

N

Highest

Lee et al. 2020 29 (RCT)

No COI

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

High

Schou et al. 1989 30 (RCT)

COI NR

Y; Change in diagnostic criteria between Time 1 & Time 2

N

Y; Low response; some unreliable answers

N

No CI

N

N

High

Mojon et al. 1998 31 (RCT)

COI NR

Y; Controls likely contaminated

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

High

Budtz-Jorgensen et al. 2000 32

(Non-RCT)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

Moderate

Samson et al. 2009 33 (Repeated Cross-Sectional)

Potential COI

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

Moderate

Zenthöfer et al. 2013 34 (RCT)

COI NR

N

N

N

N

Yes CI

Low power

N

N

Higher

Seleskog et al. 2018 35

(RCT)

No COI

Study was only 3 months

N

N

N

No CI

Underpowered

N

N

Moderate

Girestam Croonquist et al. 2020 36 (RCT)

No COI

N

N

N

N

No CI

N

N

High

The quality of evidence determination is based on Balshem.23 Rating is for primary outcomes only. COI: conflict of interest; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; NR: not reported; Y: Yes; N: No