Skip to main content

Table 2 Description of scoring based on Downs & Black criteria

From: Protective socks for people with diabetes: a systematic review and narrative analysis

Study Is the aim of the study clear? Are the main outcomes clearly described? Are characteristics of patients included clearly described? Are the interventions clearly described? Are co-founders clearly described? Are the main findings clearly described? Have adverse events been reported? Are subjects lost to follow up characteristics reported? Are actual probability values reported? Were subjects invited representative of population Subjects who participated representative of population? Were staff, places & facilities representative? Was there an attempt to blind study subjects? Were analyses adjusted for different lengths of follow-up between interventions? Were appropriate Statistical tests used? Was compliance with interventions reliable? Were main outcome measures accurate and reliable? Were cases/controls recruited from same population? Were cases/controls recruited over same time? Were subjects randomized to intervention groups? Was randomized intervention concealed form subjects & clinicians? Are analyses adjusted for lost to follow up subjects Study have sufficient power to detect clinically important effect? Total score (%) based on 23 items
Veves et al. [37] X X X X O O X U O U X X O U X X X U U U U U O 10 (43.5%)
Veves et al. [38] X X X X O X X U O U U X O O X X X U U U U U O 10 (43.5%)
Murray et al. [40] X O X X X O X U O U U U O U U X U U U U U U U 6 (26.1%)
Blackwell et al. [36] X O O X O O O O O U U U O U X X X U U U U O O 5 (21.8%)
Garrow et al. [39] X X X X X X U O O U U X O U U U X U U X O O U 9 (39.2%)
Banchellini et al. [41] X X X X X X X U O X X X X X X X X X X X O U U 18 (78.3%)
Yick et al. [42] X X O X O O O U O U U U O O U U X U U U U U O 4 (17.4%)
  1. X = yes, O = no, U = unable to tell.
  2. Questions omitted: 7 - no trials reported the random variability for their main outcomes, 15 - none of the studies were double-blind, 16 - there was no evidence of data dredging, 25 - cofounding variables were not adjusted for throughout.