Skip to main content

Table 2 Critical appraisal of the 11 studies with the use of Quality Criteria Checklista

From: Is there an association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cognitive function? A systematic review

  Celikbilek, 2018 [22] Elliott, 2013 [23] Felipo, 2012 [24] Filipovic, 2018 [21] Seo, 2016 [32] Takahashi, 2017 [28] Tarter, 1984 [30] Tarter, 1987 [31] Tuttolomondo, 2018 [33] Weinstein, 2018 [27] Weinstein, 2019 [29]
Relevance Questions
 1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
 3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dietetics practice? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
 4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Validity Questions
 1. Was the research question clearly stated? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y
 3. Were study groups comparable or was an appropriate reference standard used? Y N Unclear Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
 4. Were methods of handling losses from the original sample (withdrawals) described? Y N NA Y N N N N NA NA Y
 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Y Y Y Y Y Y Unclear Y Y Y Y
 6. Was the intervention/treatment regimen/exposure factor, procedure, process or product of interest, and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were intervening factors described? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
 7. Were outcomes or condition or status of interest clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Unclear Y Y Y
 9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y
 10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Overall Ratingb Positive + Positive + Positive + Positive + Positive + Positive + Positive + Neutral Ø Neutral Ø Positive + Positive +
  1. aThe Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library (EAL) and Quality Criteria Checklist was used as the appraisal tools
  2. bAbbreviations: NA Not Applicable. Positive (+) = most of the answers to the validity questions are “Yes” (including criteria 2, 3, 6, and 7 and at least one additional “Yes”). Neutral (Ø) = the answers to the validity criteria questions 2, 3, 6, and 7 do not indicate that study is exceptionally strong. Negative (−) = most (six or more) of the answers to the validity questions are “No”