Appendix 5 Risk of bias of studies included in the systematic review – Reference Random sequence Allocation Blinding of Blinding of Incomplete Selective Other generation (selection concealment participants and outcome assessors outcome data reporting bias) (selection bias) personnel (detection bias) (attrition bias) (reporting bias) (performance bias) Abrahamsson ?1 Method not ? Not described low Double ? Not stated low 13% low Expected low 1994 stated blind attrition outcomes reported Amundsen ? Method not ? Not described low Participants low Blinded high 20% low Expected low 2003 stated blinded, not until study attrition outcomes personnel completion reported ? ? Not described high Unclear, but ? Not stated low 5% low Expected low Anderson Method not 1991 stated obvious attrition outcomes differences reported in foods Beck 2010 low Computer ? Not described low Participants ? Not stated high 15% low Expected low generated blinded, not attrition, outcomes sequence personnel 30% in reported control group Behall 1997 high Not described ? Not described ? Not ? Not stated low No attrition Low Expected low Cross-over as described outcomes design with randomised. reported meals However, provided gave the diets in different orders to different subjects Not described Unclear, but Not stated 7% Expected Behall 2004a ? Latin square ? high ? low low low obvious attrition outcomes differences reported in foods Behall ? Latin square ? Not described high Unclear, but ? Not stated low 14% low Expected low obvious attrition outcomes differences reported in foods Not described Participants Not stated 11% Expected Biorklund ? Method not ? low ? low low low 2005 (2 stated blinded, not attrition outcomes personnel reported strata) ? ? Not described low Participants ? Not stated low no attrition low Expected low Biorklund Method not 2008 stated blinded, not outcomes personnel reported
Appendix 5 – Risk of bias of studies included in the systematic review Reference Random sequence generation (selection bias) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Selective reporting (reporting bias) Other Abrahamsson 1994 ?1 Method not stated ? Not described low Double blind ? Not stated low 13% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Amundsen 2003 ? Method not stated ? Not described low Participants blinded, not personnel low Blinded until study completion high 20% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Anderson 1991 ? Method not stated ? Not described high Unclear, but obvious differences in foods ? Not stated low 5% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Beck 2010 low Computer generated sequence ? Not described low Participants blinded, not personnel ? Not stated high 15% attrition, 30% in control group low Expected outcomes reported low Behall 1997 high Not described as randomised. However, gave the diets in different orders to different subjects ? Not described ? Not described ? Not stated low No attrition Low Expected outcomes reported low Cross-over design with meals provided Behall 2004a ? Latin square ? Not described high Unclear, but obvious differences in foods ? Not stated low 7% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Behall ? Latin square ? Not described high Unclear, but obvious differences in foods ? Not stated low 14% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Biorklund 2005 (2 strata) ? Method not stated ? Not described low Participants blinded, not personnel ? Not stated low 11% attrition low Expected outcomes reported low Biorklund 2008 ? Method not stated ? Not described low Participants blinded, not personnel ? Not stated low no attrition low Expected outcomes reported low