Item | Kappa (95% CI) | Magnitude of agreement |
---|---|---|
Risk of bias | Â | Â |
 Was random sequence generation used (i.e. no potential for selection bias)? | 0.89 (0.69 to 1) | Almost perfect |
 Was allocation concealment used (i.e. no potential for selection bias)? | 0.69 (0.29 to 1) | Substantial |
 Was there blinding of participants and personnel (i.e. no potential for performance bias)? | 0.71 (0.41 to 1) | Substantial |
 Was there blinding of outcome assessment (i.e. no potential for detection bias)? | 0.98 (0.67 to 1) | Almost perfect |
 Was an objective outcome used? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 Were more than (80%)a of participants enrolled in trials included in the analysis? (i.e. no potential attrition bias) | 0.44 (0.07 to 0.81) | Moderate |
 Were data reported consistently for the outcome of interest (i.e. no potential selective reporting)? (no potential reporting bias) | 0.25 (0 to 0.61) | Fair |
 No other biases reported? (no potential of other bias) | 0.20 (0 to 0.62) | Slight |
 Did the trials end as scheduled (i.e. not stopped early)? | 1 | Almost perfect |
Inconsistency | Â | Â |
 Point estimates did not vary widely? (i.e. no clinical meaningful inconsistency) | 0.65 (0.37 to 0.93) | Substantial |
 To what extent do confidence intervals overlap? | 0.50 (0.17 to 0.77) | Moderate |
 Was the direction of effect consistent? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 What was the magnitude of statistical heterogeneity (as measured by I 2)? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 Was the test for heterogeneity statistically significant (p < 0.1)? | 1 | Almost perfect |
Indirectness | Â | Â |
 Were the populations in included studies applicable to the target population? | Below chance | Poor |
 Were the interventions in included studies applicable to target intervention? | Below chance | Poor |
 Was the included outcome not a surrogate outcome? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 Was the outcome timeframe sufficient? | 0.47 (0 to 1) | Moderate |
 Were the conclusions based on direct comparisons? | 1 | Almost perfect |
Imprecision | Â | Â |
 Was the confidence interval for the pooled estimate not consistent with benefit and harm? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 What was the magnitude of the median sample size? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 What was the magnitude of the number of included studies? | 1 | Almost perfect |
 Was the outcome a common event? (e.g. occurs more than 1/100)a | 1 | Almost perfect |
 Was there no evidence of serious harm associated with treatment? | 0.89 (0.67 to 1) | Almost perfect |
Publication bias | Â | Â |
 Did the authors conduct a comprehensive search? | 0.65 (0 to 1) | Substantial |
 Did the authors search for grey literature? | 0.26 (0 to 0.67) | Fair |
 Authors did not apply restrictions to study selection on the basis of language? | 0.74 (0.45 to 1) | Substantial |
 There was no industry influence on studies included in the review? | 0.71 (0.45 to 0.98) | Substantial |
 There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry? | 0.62 (0.35 to 0.89) | Substantial |
 There was no discrepancy in findings between published and unpublished trials? | 1 | Almost perfect |