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

47.06%

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

82.35%

Bunyaratavej at al. 2016 [32]

Level III-2

Case-control

Y

Y

Y

N

N

NA

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NA

Y

10/15

66.60%

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

58.82%

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

70.59%

Baran and Tosti 2002 [35]

Level IV

Case-series

N

Y

Y

N

NA

NA

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NA

Y

4/14

28.57%

  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