Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 20;5:7. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00007

Table 1.

Quality assessment of articles.

Hypothesis/aim/objective clearly described? Main outcomes clearly described in the Introduction/Methods? Characteristics of patients clearly described? Interventions of interest clearly described? Distribution of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? Main findings of the study clearly described? Does the study provide estimates of random variability in the data for main outcomes? Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of intervention been reported? Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? Have actual probability values been reported for main outcomes except where probability is <0.001? Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive? Was an attempted made to blind study subjects to the intervention they received? Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? If any results of were based on “data dragging,” was it made clear? In trials/cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up, or in case–control studies, is the time period between intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? Were the statistical tests used to assess main outcomes appropriate? Was compliance with the intervention(s) reliable? Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited from the same population? Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time? Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups? Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients/staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? Was the adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? Did the study have sufficient power to detect clinically important effect wherePvalue for difference being due to chance is <5%? Total score (31)

(20) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 4 23
(10) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 5 25
(39) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y 3 20
(37) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y 5 23
(33) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N Y N 5 21
(38) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N 5 20
(34) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N 5 22
(9) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N 5 19
(35) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y 5 20
(36) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y 5 20
(19) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y 3 21
(11) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 5 28
(40) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y 5 21