Table 2.

Criteria for assessment of the quality of laboratory microbiology experimentation

Domain	Description of domain	Review criteria
Selection and confounding bias	Describe possible genetic or environmental variations to determine how results for different strains and isolates of the same species can be compared. For clinical isolates, genotype is not required.	Were the groups compared individually or were differences discussed in the analysis? Were species and strain details provided?
Study design/methods	Reproducibility and detail of study design and methods. Description of analysis methods.	Are there any discrepancies between methods and in-text? Is the methodological section missing any steps or appropriate detail? (including but not limited to below) Steps/details: Media used. Temperature. Time. Incubation conditions (static, rolling, shaking, aeration). Reagents used. Concentrations used. Appropriate control experiments. Replication of experiments.
Incomplete outcome data	Completeness of outcome data being analysed, including loss and exclusion of data from analysis.	Is there missing outcome data that was not addressed? Is the control outcome data mentioned in the paper present?
Selective outcome reporting (reporting bias)	Reporting of aim and all outcomes of the study.	Was all data reported for all conditions or just select/statistically significant results? Was it clear whether no change results were reported? Was statistical significance noted (if possible)? Is the appropriate comparison to baseline provided?
Other sources of bias	Potential bias not covered by other domains.	Was the study apparently free of additional concerns about bias?
Global bias score	Summary of all five domains	Calculate total quality points. The more points the higher the risk of bias.