Table.

GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Athlete's foot.

Important outcomes	Adverse effects, Mycological cure rates
Studies (Participants)	Outcome	Comparison	Type of evidence	Quality	Consistency	Directness	Effect size	GRADE	Comment
What are the effects of topical treatments for athlete's foot?
13 (1524)	Mycological cure rates	Topical allylamines versus placebo	4	0	–1	0	0	Moderate	Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs
1 (68)	Mycological cure rates	Topical allylamines versus each other	4	–1	0	0	0	Moderate	Quality point deducted for sparse data
15 (2042)	Mycological cure rates	Topical allylamines versus topical azoles	4	0	–1	0	0	Moderate	Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs
13 (1259)	Mycological cure rates	Topical azoles versus placebo	4	0	–1	0	0	Moderate	Consistency point deducted for conflicting results
9 (1287)	Mycological cure rates	Topical azoles versus each other	4	0	–1	0	0	Moderate	Consistency point deducted for conflicting results
1 (87)	Mycological cure rates	Topical azoles versus ciclopirox olamine	4	–1	0	0	0	Moderate	Quality point deducted for sparse data
3 (618)	Mycological cure rates	Topical ciclopirox olamine versus placebo	4	0	–1	0	0	Moderate	Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs

We initially allocate 4 points to evidence from RCTs, and 2 points to evidence from observational studies. To attain the final GRADE score for a given comparison, points are deducted or added from this initial score based on preset criteria relating to the categories of quality, directness, consistency, and effect size. Quality: based on issues affecting methodological rigour (e.g., incomplete reporting of results, quasi-randomisation, sparse data [<200 people in the analysis]). Consistency: based on similarity of results across studies. Directness: based on generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on magnitude of effect as measured by statistics such as relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.