Skip to main content

Table 2 Appraisal of study validity using the AOTA Evidence Based Project Scale[23]

From: The effectiveness of lasers in the treatment of onychomycosis: a systematic review

Study

NHMRC evidence level**

Sample size

Internal validity

Threats to internal validity

External validity

Threats to external validity

Carney et al. [26]

IV

C

2

20% attrition

b

Only DLSO mycosis of the hallux included

Unblinded assessment

Hees et al. [37]

III-3

C

1

 

b

Only T Rubrum mycosis included

Hochman [28]

IV

C

2

Antifungal cream used post intervention.

b

Type of onychomycosis treated not classified

Variable follow up periods

Hollmig et al. [29]

II

B

2

Blinding procedures not stated

b

Type of onychomycosis treated not classified

18% attrition

Kalokasidis et al. [30]

IV

A

3

Short follow up period OSI results not fully reported

b

Mainly mild/DLSO mycosis treated

No control group

Kimura et al. [31]

III-3

A

3

Variable no. of treatments (1–3)

b

Mainly DLSO mycosis treated

Turbidity scoring not validated

Landsman et al. [25]

II

B

2

Smaller control than treatment group

b

Majority cases mild to moderate mycosis

Industry sponsorship/authorship

Lim et al. [32]

IV

B

2

Blinding procedures for nail grading not clear.

b

Majority cases mild to moderate mycosis

Not stated how many finger v. toe nails included

Moon et al. [33]

IV

C

2

Limited details on nail scoring system validation

b

Mainly (DLSO) included

Noguichi et al. [34]

IV

C

2

Limited detail on independence of nail score assessment

b

Severe nail disease or thick nails excluded - only mild/DLSO cases included

Waibel et al. [35]

III-3

B

2

No control/placebo group

b

Types of mycosis included not reported

Limited detail on how nail clearance assessed and reported

Zhang et al. [36]

III-3

B

3

No control/placebo group

b

Types of mycosis included not reported

Limited detail on how nail clearance assessed

  1. **NHMRC Hierarchy of Evidence adapted from [22].