Interventions to improve sarcopenia in cirrhosis: A systematic review

Table 6 Summary of scoring results in terms of risk of bias (low, medium or high) of all studies included in the review

Ref.	Question and risk of bias
	Study design	Study participants	Measurements of intervention	Measurements of outcomes	Confounding factors	Blinding	% follow-up	Info on non-participants	Analysis	Sample size	Overall quality rating: Risk of bias
Debette-Gratien et al[40], 2015	+1	+1	-1	+1	-1	0	-1	+1	0	-1	0 = medium risk
Berzigotti et al[47], 2017	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	0	0	+1	+1	-1	5 = low risk
Hiraoka et al[46], 2017	+1	0	+1	+1	-1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	4 = low risk
Nishida et al[45], 2016	+1	-1	-1	+1	-1	0	-1	+1	0	-1	-2 = medium risk
Montomoli et al[50], 2010	+1	-1	0	+1	-1	0	-1	+1	0	-1	-1 = medium risk
Ohara et al[38], 2018	+1	-1	0	0	0	0	+1	-1	+1	0	+1 = medium risk
Okumura et al[30], 2006	-1	-1	+1	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1 = medium risk
Plauth et al[48], 2004	+1	-1	0	+1	-1	0	0	+1	+1	-1	+1 = medium risk
Tsein et al[49], 2013	+1	0	-1	+1	0	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	-1 = medium risk
Yurci et al[51], 2011	+1	+1	-1	0	-1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	-1 = medium risk
Kitajima et al[37], 2017	+1	+1	0	+1	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	5 = low risk

Total score -9 to -3 = high risk of bias; -2 to +3 = medium risk of bias; +4 to +10 = low risk of bias.