Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine / 2017 / Article / Tab 2

Review Article

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 itemLabelDescription

1Random sequence generationWas the allocation sequence adequately generated?
2Allocation concealmentWas allocation adequately concealed?
3Participant characteristicsAre the characteristics of the participants included in the study clearly described (inclusion/exclusion criteria)?
4Blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessorsWas knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?
5Intervention descriptionIs the intervention of interest sufficiently described to allow replication?
6Neuroimaging methodologyAre the neuroimaging methods clearly described? Description should include data-acquisition parameters and pre- and postprocessing pipelines.
7Outcome measurement validity and reliabilityWere the outcome measures used accurate and appropriate (valid and reliable)?
8Selective reportingWere all outcome measures detailed in the methods reported in the results?
9Adverse eventsHave all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported?
10Reporting of power calculation and attrition rate effect on powerWas 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.