Table 1.

Scoring method for evaluation of study quality in clinical systematic review

	CAMARADES	Delphi	GRADE
Binary response items
Yes (1 point); no (0 points)
Peer reviewed publication	X
Statement of potential conflicts of interest	X
Sample size calculation	X	X
Random allocation to group	X	X	X
Allocation concealment	X		X
Blinded assessment of outcome		X
Tertiary response items
Yes (1 point); no (0 points); not clear (0.5 points)
Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?		X
Were the eligibility criteria specified?		X
Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?		X
Was there intention to treat analysis?		X
Complete accounting of patient and outcome events			X
Non-selective outcome reporting		X
No other limitations			X
Can we be confident in the assessment of outcome?			X
Quinary response items
N/A; definitely yes (1 point); probably yes (0.75 points); probably no (0.25 points); definitely no (0 points)
Was selection of treatment and control groups drawn from the same population?			X
Can we be confident that patients received the allocated treatment?			X
Can we be confident that the outcome of interest was not present at start of the study?			X
Did the study stratify on variables associated with the outcome of interest or did the analysis take this into account?			X
Can we be confident in the assessment of the presence or absence of prognostic factors?			X
Was the follow-up of cohorts adequate?			X
Were cointerventions similar between groups?			X