Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jul 27, 2016; 8(7): 521-532
Published online Jul 27, 2016. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i7.521
Published online Jul 27, 2016. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i7.521
Items and scores |
Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation? |
2 = method did not allow disclosure of assignment |
1 = small but possible chance of disclosure of assignment or states random but no description |
0 = quasi-randomized |
Were the outcomes of participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention to treat)? |
2 = intention-to-treat analysis based on all cases randomized possible or carried out |
1 = states number and reasons for withdrawal but intention-to-treat analysis not possible |
0 = not mentioned or not possible |
Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status? |
2 = action taken to blind assessors, or outcomes such that bias is unlikely |
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of assessors |
0 = not mentioned |
Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? |
2 = good comparability of groups |
1 = confounding small |
0 = large potential for confounding, or not discussed |
Were care programs, other than the trial options, identical? |
2 = care programs clearly identical |
1 = clear but unimportant differences |
0 = not mentioned or clear and important differences in care programs |
Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined? |
2 = clearly defined |
1 = inadequately defined |
0 = not defined |
Were the interventions clearly defined (including estimates of nutritional value)? |
2 = clearly defined interventions are applied with a standardized protocol |
1 = clearly defined interventions are applied but the application protocol is not standardized |
0 = intervention and/or application protocol are poorly or not defined |
Were the participants blind to assignment status following allocation? |
2 = effective action taken to blind participants |
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding participants |
0 = not possible, or not mentioned (unless double-blind), or possible but not done |
Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status? |
2 = effective action taken to blind treatment providers |
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of treatment providers |
0 = not possible, or not mentioned (unless double-blind), or possible but not done |
Was the overall duration of surveillance clinically appropriate? |
2 = optimal (six months or more) |
1 = adequate (one up to six months) |
0 = not defined, or not adequate |
- Citation: Crickmer M, Dunne CP, O’Regan A, Coffey JC, Dunne SS. Benefits of post-operative oral protein supplementation in gastrointestinal surgery patients: A systematic review of clinical trials. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8(7): 521-532
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v8/i7/521.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v8.i7.521