Table 3.
Quality assessment of included studies
| Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist for Primary Research | Aleixo et al. (2020) 39 | Blauwhoff‐Buskermolen et al. (2017) 40 | Bye et al. (2017) 27 | Daly et al. (2020) 41 | Derksen et al. (2020) 42 | Gigic et al. (2020) 43 | Hua et al. (2020) 44 | Huang et al. (2017) 45 | Mitsui et al. (2020) 46 | Nipp et al. (2018) 28 | Sheean et al. (2019) 47 | Thoresen et al. (2012) 48 | van Roekel et al. (2017) 49 | Wang et al. (2016) 50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall quality rating | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø | Ø |
| Relevance questions | ||||||||||||||
| Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dietetics practice? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Is the intervention or procedure feasible? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Validity questions | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 3. Were study groups comparable? | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| 6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimes, exposure factor or procedure and any comparisons(s) described in detail? Were intervening factors described? | No a | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Is bias due to study's finding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Checklist for Primary Research contains four relevance questions, and 10 validity questions assessing the means by which the study has addressed issues of bias and generalisability, and quality in reporting of methods and statistical analysis. 37 Studies are assigned a positive (+) rating if these factors are adequately addressed with a ‘yes’ assigned to most questions, a negative (−) rating if they are not, and a neutral (Ø) rating if the answers to particular validity questions (2, 3, 6, and 7) are ‘no’, indicating a lack of strength in quality.
Specific radiodensity range used to identify skeletal muscle through CT imaging analysis not reported in methods.