Table 2.
Study quality report.
| Author | Year | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | QS (0–10) | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | QS (0–15) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aliena-Valero | 2018 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 8 | + | + | + | + | + | 13 | ||
| Cutler | 2019 | + | + | + | 3 | + | + | + | 6 | |||||||||
| Dhanesha | 2018 | + | + | + | + | + | + | 6 | + | + | + | + | 10 | |||||
| Glantz | 2005 | + | + | + | + | 4 | + | 5 | ||||||||||
| Jiménez-Xarrié | 2018 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 8 | + | + | + | + | 12 | |||
| Justicia | 2017 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 8 | + | 9 | ||||||
| Kikuchi | 2018 | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | + | 6 | |||||||||
| Ma | 2012 | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | + | + | 7 | ||||||||
| Onetti | 2015 | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | + | + | + | + | + | 10 | |||||
| Romanos | 2007 | + | + | + | 3 | + | + | + | + | 7 | ||||||||
| Vila | 2019 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 7 | + | + | + | + | 11 | ||||
| Ya | 2018 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 7 | + | 8 | |||||||
| Yu | 1998 | + | + | + | + | 4 | + | 5 | ||||||||||
| Zhang | 2017 | + | + | + | + | + | 5 | + | 6 |
Study quality (SQ) items are (1) peer-reviewed publication, (2) control of temperature, (3) randomisation of group allocation, (4) blinded induction of ischaemia, (5) blinded assessment of outcome, (6) avoidance of anaesthetics with marked intrinsic neuroprotective properties, (7) use of animals with co-morbidities (e.g. hypertension, diabetes), (8) sample size calculation, (9) statement of compliance with animal welfare requirements, (10) statement of potential conflicts of interest, (11) physiological monitoring during stroke induction (in addition to control of temperature, e.g. blood pressure, gases), (12) prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria, (13) reporting of animals excluded from analysis, (14) reporting of study funding and (15) injury confirmed via laser Doppler or perfusion imaging.