Skip to main content

Table 8 Quality template, modified version from The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, SBU

From: Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in accelerating tooth movement, preventing relapse and managing acute pain during orthodontic treatment in humans: a systematic review

A1. Review of shortcomings – any systematic errors (bias)

Yes

No

Indefinite

Not applicable

A1. Selection bias

 a) Was an appropriate method for randomizing used?

 b) If the study used any form of limitation within the process of randomizing (for example block, strata, minimizing), are the reasons for this adequate?

 c) Was the composition of the groups adequately analogous?

 d) If there was any correction for imbalances in the baseline variables, was it performed in an adequate way?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

A2. Treatment bias

 a) Were the study participants blinded?

 b) Were the researchers blinded?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

A3. Assessment bias

 a) Were the observers evaluating the results blinded to the type of intervention?

 b) Were the observers reviewing the outcome impartial?

 c) Was the outcome adequately defined?

 d) Was the outcome identified/diagnosed with a validated method of measurement?

 e) Were adequate statistical methods applied to reporting the outcome?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium

High:

A4. Failure bias

 a) Was the statistical handling of attrition adequate?

 b) Were the reasons for attrition analysed?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

A5. Reporting bias

 a) Were side effects/complications measured in a systematic manner?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

A6. Conflicts of interest

 a) Was there a risk of conflicts of interest or of influence from a financier?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

A7. Study population

 a) Was the population from which the participants were sampled described and relevant?

 b) Was the recruitment of participants acceptable?

 c) Was the study population adequate?

 d) Was the analysed population (ITT or PP) appropriate to the question to be addressed by the study?

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment:

 

Low:

Medium:

High:

Appraisal

 A1. Selection bias

 A2. Treatment bias

 A3. Assessment bias

 A4. Failure bias

 A5. Reporting bias

 A6. Conflicts of interest bias

 A7. Study population

  Comments:

  Concluding assessment of quality:

 

Low:

Medium:

High: