Table 1.
Quality modified checklist from Downs and Black
| Item | Scoring options | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | UTD | ||
| Q1 | Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q2 | Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q3 | Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q4 | Are the interventions of interest clearly described? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q6 | Are the main findings of the study clearly described? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q7 | Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q8 | Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q9 | Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? | 1 | 0 | N |
| Q10 |
Have actual probability values been reported(e.g. 0.035 rather than < 0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? |
1 | 0 | N |
| Q11 | Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q15 | Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q16 | If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging,” was this made clear? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q18 | Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q20 | Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q21 | Were the patients in diverent intervention groups recruited from the same population? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q23 | Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups? | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Q26 | Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? | 1 | 0 | 0 |