Table 3.
Methodological Quality Assessment questions. MQA questions modified from Ainge et al. 2011 [13] and Downs and Black 1998 [26]. GTT, glucose tolerance test; GI, glycaemic index.
| Modified Downs and Black Quality Index |
|---|
| Reporting |
| General |
| 1. Were the hypotheses, aims or objectives of the study clearly described in the introduction? a |
| 2. Were the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the introduction or methods section? |
| Animal Characteristics |
| 3. Was animal species/strain and sex specified? a |
| 4. Was the animal age at commencement of the study specified? a |
| 5. Have the animal weights at commencement of the study been specified or given graphically? a |
| 6. Have the animal starting numbers been specified? a |
| 7. Have the housing details been specified, including temperature, light cycle and group housing? |
| Design and Outcomes |
| 8. Were the interventions of interest clearly described? |
| 9. Were the main findings of the study clearly described? |
| 10. Were estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes clearly described, such as through standard deviation or standard error of the mean? a |
| 11. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? |
| 12. Have the actual probability values been reported for the main outcomes, except where probability value is less than 0.05? a |
| 13. Were all blood tests, GTTs performed without anaesthetic? b |
| 14. Were all GTTs performed after a maximum 5 h fast? b |
| 15. Were the diet matched both in terms of macronutrient composition and fibre content? b |
| 16. Was a difference in GI of the two diets shown, either quantitatively or qualitatively? b |
| Internal Validity |
| Bias |
| 17. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? |
| 18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? |
| 19. Were the main outcomes measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? |
| Confounding |
| 20. Was it stated in the text that the animals were randomised to intervention groups? a |
| 21. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? |
| Power |
| 22. Was the paper of sufficient power to detect a clinical important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? |
a Modified questions; b Additional questions.