Benefits of post-operative oral protein supplementation in gastrointestinal surgery patients: A systematic review of clinical trials

Table 1 Quality assessment tool (adapted from[6])

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