Wu et al. 2014 Review authors’ Bias Support for judgement judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomised using SAS and a block design Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk No placebo. Participants knew they were receiving the intervention. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Only 32/57 participants underwent PAT; no analysis of their characteristics Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk presented Only baseline and change in RHI or fRHI values presented, and not the Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk RHI or fRHI Cortés et al. 2006 Review authors’ Bias Support for judgement judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk No placebo. Participants knew they were receiving the intervention. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Low risk Outcome assessor was blinded to treatment assignment Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No attrition during study Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All anticipated outcomes were measured.
Wu et al. 2014 Bias Review authors’ judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomised using SAS and a block design Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk No placebo. Participants knew they were receiving the intervention. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk Only 32/57 participants underwent PAT; no analysis of their characteristics presented Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Only baseline and change in RHI or fRHI values presented, and not the RHI or fRHI Cortés et al. 2006 Bias Review authors’ judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear Not specifically addressed in the published paper Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) High risk No placebo. Participants knew they were receiving the intervention. Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Low risk Outcome assessor was blinded to treatment assignment Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No attrition during study Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All anticipated outcomes were measured.
Walnuts%20Systematic%20Review.docx