Table 2.

NHMRC levels of evidence and modified McMaster results of methodological quality

Study	NHMRC level and study design	Items on modified McMaster critical review form																	Raw score and %
		1	2	3a	3b	3c	3d	3e	4a	4b	5a	5b	5c	6a	6b	6c	6d	7
Bassiri -Jahromi et al. 2012 [30]	Level II-RCT	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	8/17 47.06%
Lahfa et al. 2013 [31]	Level II-RCT	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	14/17 82.35%
Bunyaratavej at al. 2016 [32]	Level III-2 Case-control	Y	Y	Y	N	N	NA	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	Y	10/15 66.60%
Fraki et al. 1997 [33]	Level III-3 Comparative study without controls	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	10/17 58.82%
Escalante et al. 2013 [34]	Level III-3 Comparative study without controls	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	12/17 70.59%
Baran and Tosti 2002 [35]	Level IV Case-series	N	Y	Y	N	NA	NA	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	NA	Y	4/14 28.57%

McMaster items to be scored: 1. Was the purpose stated clearly?; 2. Was relevant background literature reviewed?; 3a. Was the sample described in detail?; 3b. Was sample size justified?; 3c. Were the groups randomised?; 3d. Was randomising appropriately done?; 3e. Was the diagnostic method for onychomycosis appropriate?; 4a. Were the outcome measures reliable?; 4b. Were the outcome measures valid?; 5a. Intervention was described in detail?; 5b. Contamination was avoided?; 5c. Cointervention was avoided?; 6a. Results were reported in terms of statistical significance?; 6b. Were the analysis method/s appropriate?; 6c. Clinical importance was reported?; 6d. Drop-outs were reported?; and 7. Conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results?. Y = yes, N = No, NA = not applicable