Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 13;6(4):00044-2020. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00044-2020

TABLE 3.

Author's appraisal of selected comparative effectiveness studies using RELEVANT 2.0 tool [121]

Author and study name Study design Primary item score n out of 11 (%) Secondary item score n out of 10 (%)
Vestboet al. [10] Salford Lung Study Pragmatic RCT 10 (91%) 8 (80%)
Bosnic-Anticevichet al. [29] Historical matched cohort study 11 (100%) 8 (80%)
Buhlet al. [26] DACCORD Study Prospective observational study 10 (91%) 8 (80%)
Kardoset al. [27] DINO and DACOTA studies Prospective observational cohort studies 10 (91%) 10 (100%)
Ocakliet al. [34] Cross-sectional observational study 8 (73%) 5 (50%)
Zeigeret al. [38] Prospective observational study 11 (100%) 6 (60%)

RCT: randomised controlled trial.