Skip to main content

Table 2 NHMRC levels of evidence and modified McMaster results of methodological quality

From: The use of urea for the treatment of onychomycosis: a systematic review

Study NHMRC level and study design Items on modified McMaster critical review form Raw score and %
1 2 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 4a 4b 5a 5b 5c 6a 6b 6c 6d 7
Bassiri -Jahromi et al. 2012 [30] Level II-RCT Y N Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y N Y N 8/17
Lahfa et al. 2013 [31] Level II-RCT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 14/17
Bunyaratavej at al. 2016 [32] Level III-2
Y Y Y N N NA Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y 10/15
Fraki et al. 1997 [33] Level III-3
Comparative study without controls
Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y 10/17
Escalante et al. 2013 [34] Level III-3
Comparative study without controls
Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 12/17
Baran and Tosti 2002 [35] Level IV
N Y Y N NA NA Y N N N N N N N N NA Y 4/14
  1. McMaster items to be scored: 1. Was the purpose stated clearly?; 2. Was relevant background literature reviewed?; 3a. Was the sample described in detail?; 3b. Was sample size justified?; 3c. Were the groups randomised?; 3d. Was randomising appropriately done?; 3e. Was the diagnostic method for onychomycosis appropriate?; 4a. Were the outcome measures reliable?; 4b. Were the outcome measures valid?; 5a. Intervention was described in detail?; 5b. Contamination was avoided?; 5c. Cointervention was avoided?; 6a. Results were reported in terms of statistical significance?; 6b. Were the analysis method/s appropriate?; 6c. Clinical importance was reported?; 6d. Drop-outs were reported?; and 7. Conclusions were appropriate given study methods and results?. Y = yes, N = No, NA = not applicable