China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Investigating links between diet and health outcomes
Published in Geoffrey P. Webb, Nutrition, 2019
Clinical trials obviously vary in their quality of design and execution and this will affect the reliability of the results that they produce. There are occasions, such as when combining clinical trials in a meta-analysis, when some objective numerical grading system for clinical trials is desirable, and one of the best known of these is called the JADAD scale, first described by Jadad et al. (1996). This grades them from 0 (lowest quality) to 5 (highest). In this system points are awarded as follows: One point if the trial is randomised and another if a satisfactory method of randomisation is described in the paper. One point if the trial is double-blinded and a second point if a satisfactory description of how double-blinding was achieved is given. One point is given if the number of dropouts from the trial and their reason for dropping out are recorded.
Selected Supplements That Support Glycemic Control and Reduce Chronic Inflammation
Published in Robert Fried, Richard M. Carlton, Type 2 Diabetes, 2018
Robert Fried, Richard M. Carlton
A review and meta-analysis of the metabolic effects of l-carnitine on type 2 diabetes, published in the journal Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology and Diabetes, concluded that administration of l-carnitine is associated with an improvement in glycemia and plasma lipids. That review and analysis centered on PubMed, Trip Database, and Cochrane Library, and selected those that had adequate methodological quality based on the Jadad scale.
Evidence-Based Medicine: The Basics
Published in Michael B O’Neill, Michelle Mary Mcevoy, Alf J Nicholson, Terence Stephenson, Stephanie Ryan, Diagnosing and Treating Common Problems in Paediatrics, 2017
Michael B O’Neill, Michelle Mary Mcevoy, Alf J Nicholson, Terence Stephenson, Stephanie Ryan
Bias and its impact. Pitfall: clinical effects can be overestimated if the study is performed incorrectly. Non-randomised studies can overestimate the treatment by 40%, non-double-blind studies by 17% and small trials by 30%. The use of the Jadad score in assessing clinical trials enhances the reader’s awareness of this pitfall.
Safety and efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 prospective studies
Published in Hematology, 2023
Chenxi Sun, Huixian Chen, Yongjing Wang, Chengyun Zheng
The included single-arm studies were assessed for the risk of bias by Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). There were 12 evaluation indicators, each of which was scored from 0 to 2. The first 8 items were for studies without a control group, with a maximum score of 16, including a clearly stated aim, inclusion of consecutive patients, prospective collection of data, endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, loss of follow up less than 5% and prospective calculation of the study size. A score of 0 indicated that it was not reported; a score of 1 indicated that it was reported but with insufficient information; and a score of 2 indicated that it was reported and sufficient information was provided. Modified Jadad scale was used to assess the risk of bias of the randomized controlled studies.
Effectiveness of action observation therapy on upper extremity function in children with cerebral palsy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in Physical Therapy Reviews, 2021
Mai Elsayed Abbass, Nahla M. Ibrahim
The extracted data were authors, year of publication, the aim of the study, subjects and intervention for the study and control groups, outcome measures, patient assessment, and follow-up (Table 1). The functional outcomes of the included studies were extracted according to the international classification of functioning (Table 2) [39]. The data were extracted, and the included studies were assessed for quality independently by the two authors. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Quality assessment was performed using the PEDro scale [40]. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials was used for risk of bias assessment [41]. The level of evidence of the included studies was assessed using the modified Sackett rating system [42]. The Jadad scale was used to assess the quality of the included randomized clinical trials [43].
A systematic review of the effect of L-tryptophan supplementation on mood and emotional functioning
Published in Journal of Dietary Supplements, 2021
Asako M. Kikuchi, Aya Tanabe, Yoshihiro Iwahori
The Jadad scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included clinical trials. This scale was developed to assess the quality of articles in systematic reviews by avoiding selection bias and examining the effects of blinding in randomized controlled trials (Jadad et al. 1996). Table 1 shows the modified Jadad scale (Dimitriou et al. 2017), some of which were changed from the original scale so that it is more suitable for the RCT’s evaluation examining the effects of TRP on mood and emotional function. Scores in the range of 0–8 are possible, and higher scores mean higher quality. Studies with a score of less than four are considered low quality, while studies with 4–8 points are considered high quality. Two reviewers independently evaluated all 32 items and there was no disagreement regarding the score.