TABLE 4.

Quality of evidence included in the systematic review and meta-analysis of WGs on subjective appetite measures and energy intake in adults, based on GRADE approach¹

Outcome	Risk of bias2	Inconsistency3	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias4	Decision5
Hunger	Some concerns	Consistent	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	Possible	⊕⊕⊕∅ Moderate
Fullness	Some concerns	Moderate	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	Possible	⊕⊕⊕∅ Moderate
Satiety	Some concerns	Consistent	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	Undetected	⊕⊕⊕∅ Moderate
Desire to eat	Some concerns	Consistent	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	Possible	⊕⊕⊕∅ Moderate
Prospective consumption	Some concerns	Moderate	No serious indirectness	Moderate imprecision	Unable to determine6	⊕⊕∅∅ Low
Energy intake	Low	Consistent	No serious indirectness	Moderate imprecision	Possible	⊕⊕⊕∅ Moderate

¹GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; WG, whole grain.

²Ranked down primarily for inadequate description of allocation concealment and lack of blinding.

³Based on I² using thresholds in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current.

⁴Based on visual analysis of funnel plots.

⁵Symbols are suggested representations of quality of evidence from GRADE Handbook (https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html).

⁶Only 8 studies and a minimum of 10 studies are generally needed to evaluate a funnel plot.