A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies Examining Nutritional and Herbal Therapies for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Using Neuroimaging Methods: Study Characteristics and Intervention Efficacy
Table 2
Risk of bias scale item descriptions.
Risk of bias item
Label
Description
1
Random sequence generation
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
2
Allocation concealment
Was allocation adequately concealed?
3
Participant characteristics
Are the characteristics of the participants included in the study clearly described (inclusion/exclusion criteria)?
4
Blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors
Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?
5
Intervention description
Is the intervention of interest sufficiently described to allow replication?
6
Neuroimaging methodology
Are the neuroimaging methods clearly described? Description should include data-acquisition parameters and pre- and postprocessing pipelines.
7
Outcome measurement validity and reliability
Were the outcome measures used accurate and appropriate (valid and reliable)?
8
Selective reporting
Were all outcome measures detailed in the methods reported in the results?
9
Adverse events
Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported?
10
Reporting of power calculation and attrition rate effect on power
Was a power calculation reported and was the study adequately powered to detect hypothesised relationships?
Note. Items rated as “yes” were scored as 1. Items rated as “no” or “unable to determine” were both scored as 0. Higher scores indicate a lower risk of bias.