Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality assessment and strength of evidence

From: Intestinal microbiota and active systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review

Study (year) Conflict of Interests Ethical Approval Downs and Black checklist GRADE
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Total Score#
Chen at al. 2020 No Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 80%
He at al. 2016 No Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 _ 12 80%
Li at al. 2019 No Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 80%
Luo at al. 2018 No * 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 76%
Hevia at al. 2014 * Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 _ 1 1 1 _ 1 1 _ 0 _ 10 76%
  1. Downs and Black checklist: A) objective clearly stated; B) main outcomes clearly described; C) sample characteristics clearly defined; D) distribution of principal confounders clearly described; E) main findings clearly defined; F) random variability in estimates provided; G) lost to follow-up described; H) probability values reported; I) sample target representative of population; J) sample recruitment representative of population; K) analyses adjusted for different follow-up duration; L) statistical tests appropriately used; M) primary outcomes valid/reliable; N) sample recruited from the same population; O) adequate adjustment for confounding; and P) losses of sample to follow-up taken into account (corresponding to questions 1–3, 5–7, 9–12, 17,18, 20, 21, 25,26). Questions G and P were applied only for longitudinal studies. Questions K and N were applied only for case-control and longitudinal studies
  2. # Score reaches 100% with 13, 15, and 17 points for cross-sectional, case-control, and longitudinal studies, respectively
  3. *, not reported, −, not applied
  4. GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; one filled circle, very low quality; two filled circles, low quality; three filled circles, moderate quality; four filled circles, high quality