{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["ROB"],"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"ROB","index":0,"n_rows":85,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":85,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Author details","ROB Assessment Tool","Reported ROB (overall and domain-specific, if reported)"]
["Fatima K. et al","Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs","Low ROB. A majority of studies did not report the presence of bias. Half of the studies indicated an attribution bias. Only a limited number of studies reported a selection bias. "]
["Papadopoulou S.K. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies\nAXIS tool for crossectional studies","Moderate overall ROB. The quality score was satisfactory with three studies having six stars and seven studies having seven stars in the NOS."]
["Nucci D. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. Using the NOS scale, the score was generally high, with all studies but one accounting for a score of nine. "]
["Gregory S. et al","NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies","Low ROB. Generally, the studies were assessed to be at a low risk of bias."]
["Townsend R.F. et al","Cochrane RoB-2\nNew Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low to mederate ROB. 14 studies were rated as high, 8 as low, and the remaining 61 as medium quality."]
["Moore E. et al","NR","Overall low ROB. All included studies received a positive rating, indicating that most validity questions received a \"yes\" response out of a maximum of 10. "]
["Thackrey E. et al","NIH Quality Assessment Tool for BeforeAfter (PrePost)\nNIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies","Moderate to high overall ROB. Based on the Cochrane RoB tool, two studies were judged as having overall some concerns. This was primarily due to a lack of blinding of outcome assessors and deviations from the intended interventions. Both the pretest–postt"]
["Sangouni A.A. et al","Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs","Low ROB. All studies had a good quality based on the Cochran criteria. Score quality of the included studies was from 3 to 6. Four studies did not report using any method to conceal the allocation of participants. For the blinding of assessors or analysts"]
["Pameijer E.M. et al","ROBINS-1 tool\nAMSTAR-2 tool","Low ROB. The majority of the studies scored a low risk of bias on most domains."]
["Angelidi A.M. et al","Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for RCTs","Low ROB. There was a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data, with 66.7% (n_=_2) of papers adequately describing selection and attrition bias, whereas all papers were assessed as adequately describing reporting bias. Th"]
["Luong R. et al","Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2)\nJoanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklists","Low ROB. Three of the 8 cohort studies with ≥3 “no” or “unclear” categories were excluded. There were a total of 24 outcomes from the RCTs, with 1 “low,” “some concerns, and 6 “high” overall risk ratings "]
["Sepandi M. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Moderate ROB. The mean total score of Newcastle scale for the included studies was 7 "]
["Noori M. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Moderate ROB (score 5 to 6)"]
["Gastaldello A. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. The two cross-sectional studies, evaluated by the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, were considered of high quality. All cohort studies were deemed of high quality. "]
["Cuevas-Cervera M. et al","e-PEDro scale for rating quality of RCTs\nQuality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS)","Low ROB. Good to moderate for RCTs, and good for observational."]
["Gianfredi V. et al","AMSTAR-2 tool","High ROB. The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was generally low or critically low. "]
["Lee E. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. The risk of bias in the selected studies was low, and the quality of evidence for the identified associations was low or very low due to imprecision of effect estimation, inconsistent results, and publication bias. "]
["Zeraattalab-Motlagh S. et al","ROBINS-I","Moderate ROB. Half cohort  studies were rated to have a moderate risk of bias, as rated by ROBINS-I tool "]
["McBean L. et al","Cochrane Risk of Bias tool","Moderate ROB. The certainty of evidence was rated moderate due to downgrades for serious risk of bias and inconsistency and an upgrade for dose–response gradient"]
["Bakaloudi D.R. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Overall low ROB. The quality of the 58 included studies was examined according to the NOS. Five studies were characterized as unsatisfactory due to their ratings (2–4 stars), whereas for 17 studies the quality was only satisfactory (5–6 stars). The majori"]
["Tang C. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. The scores ranged from 6 to 8 using the NOS scale, indicating a moderate-to-high quality of the original studies."]
["Ubago-Guisado E. et al","Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews ","Low ROB. Quality was rated high"]
["Coelho-Júnior H.J. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Moderate to low ROB. Studies had a moderate to low risk of bias. "]
["Quintela B.C.S.F. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. The quality of the included studies was high, as reflected by the high Newcastle-Ottawa scores of 17 studies that achieved ≥7 stars, and only 7 studies of medium-quality, with 4–6 stars. None of the poor-quality studies were included (those with "]
["Silveira E.A. et al","NR","NA"]
["Gibbs J. et al","RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials","Moderate ROB. Sixty percent of included studies indicate a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. One hundred percent of the studies indicate a high risk of performance bias due to the nature of dietary interventions. "]
["Kadam I. et al","NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies","Moderate to high ROB. Only two studies (10%) included in this review were considered to have a low risk of bias, 13 studies (65%) were determined as of moderate risk of bias, and 5 studies (25%) were considered as having a high risk of bias "]
["Hart M.J. et al","NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies","Overall, 7 (10%) studies included in this review had a low risk of bias, 51 (74%) had a moderate risk of bias and 11 (15%) had a high risk of bias."]
["Bianchi V.E. et al","NR","Low ROB. The studies were assessed to be at a low risk of bias."]
["Schönenberger K.A. et al","RoB 2\nROBINS-I","High ROB. All studies had a high risk of bias in the domain measurement of the outcome, since it is not possible to blind the dietary intervention and pain is a subjective, self-reported outcome. For objectively measured secondary outcomes, all RCTs had s"]
["Klonizakis M. et al","RoB 2","Unclear to high ROB. The majority of RCTs had an unclear overall risk of bias, three had a low overall bias, and five were classified as having a high overall risk of bias."]
["George E.S. et al","The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library (EAL) Quality Criteria Checklist","Low ROB. Overall, the included studies were considered to be at low risk of bias as they showed a positive quality rating."]
["Shannon O.M. et al","Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias","Low to moderate ROB. Overall, the quality of the trials was modest as the majority of the studies failed to report key information to assess the presence of bias. Attrition bias was present in 50% of the studies (15., 16., 17., 25, 27, 31, 32) and few stu"]
["Limongi F. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","High ROB. According to the Cochrane Risk of Bias, except for 2 studies with an unclear risk of bias, all the RCTs received a high risk of bias rating mainly due to poor-quality outcome assessments. According to the NOS, one of the longitudinal studies mer"]
["Molina-Montes E. et al","NR","Moderate to low ROB. There was poor evidence for publication bias according to funnel plots and Egger tests."]
["Papadaki A. et al","ROBINS-I","Moderate to high ROB. Overall, there was a low risk of bias for selective outcome reporting and random sequence generation. Acceptable participant retention and/or reporting of attrition bias were considered to be achieved by 50% of papers. Risk of bias f"]
["Granic A. et al","RoB 2","Moderate ROB. As for observational studies, ten studies (53%) had low risk of bias (score range +4 to +8), and eight studies (42%) had medium risk of bias (score range 0 to +3). One study had high risk of bias (score _4). As for intervention studies, thre"]
["Moazzen S. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS)","Low ROB. All included cohort studies were rated as high-quality (7–9 points)"]
["Abbate M. et al","American Dietetic Association  Quality Criteria Checklist","Low ROB. Twelve of the 21 studies included in the review were rated positive. Five of the RCTs did not provide any information on the method of sequence generation."]
["Dianatinasab M. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low to moderate ROB. The NOS scores for the included studies ranged from 6 to 9, with 5 high-quality and 2 medium-quality studies."]
["Rees K. et al","Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions","Moderate ROB. The quality of evidence for the modest benefits on CVD risk factors in primary prevention is low or moderate, with a small number of studies reporting minimal harms. "]
["Ge L. et al","GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach","Low ROB. Ninety four randomised controlled trials were at low risk of bias and 27 were at high risk of bias "]
["Parvizian M.K. et al","National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools (NIH-QATs)","Moderate to high ROB. Based on the overall quality rating of these 10 studies, four were determined to be “good”, five “fair” and one “poor”. "]
["Genel F. et al","RoB-2 checklist per RCTs\nCochrane Handbook’s ROBINS-I tool for cohort","High ROB. From the randomised trials, one study had an overall low risk of bias, while the remaining studies had an overall high risk of bias. For the prospective non-randomised trials, one had an overall moderate risk of bias, while the other had an over"]
["Altun A. et al","NIH quality\nassessment tool w","Moderate ROB. Longitudinal studies appraised in this systematic review were of higher quality with majority demonstrating lower scores as a result of low participation and retention rate. Assessment of intervention trials demonstrated majority to be fair "]
["Lassale C. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS)","Moderare ROB. There was little evidence of publication bias as evidenced by visual inspection of the plots: estimates from the included studies are distributed equally around the overall estimate for each index used"]
["Chapman N.A. et al","Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence","Low ROB. Generally, the studies were assessed to be high quality"]
["Samadi M. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. Based on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, all the reviewed studies had an appropriate quality."]
["Saeed N. et al","Downs and Black checklist","Moderate ROB. Overall, the studies were assessed as being of moderate quality. "]
["Reijnders I.F. et al","ErasmusAGE tool","Moderate ROB. The quality of these studies ranged from poor to good, with a quality score median of 5 (range: 2–10)"]
["Ajjarapu A.S. et al","NR","NA"]
["Wu X.Y. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Moderate ROB. The risk of bias score ranged between 4 and 7 for the individual studies with an average score of 5.76 and a standard deviation of 0.97. Eleven studies were rated as moderate risk of bias (score: 5–6), and two studies was scored as high risk"]
["Xiao Y. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. The NOS scores ranged from 6 to 9"]
["Govindaraju T. et al","Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool","Moderate to low ROB. Most studies included in the review were rated as moderate quality studies with one study rated as weak and four studies rated as high quality studies, mostly based on study design and drop outs. All cross-sectional studies scored low"]
["Wang Y. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. There was no evidence for publication bias (Begg’s test: P_=_0.24, and Egger’s test: P_=_0.05), and no asymmetry was observed in the funnel plot."]
["Forsyth C. et al","Cochrane Collaboration’s tool \nNIH quality assessment tool","Moderate to high ROB. The included intervention studies all had a moderate to high risk of bias, and the prospective studies had a moderate risk of bias."]
["Radd-Vagenas S. et al","PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized\ncontrolled trials","Moderate to high ROB. The overall quality of the included studies according to the modified PEDro tool was moderate with 4 out of 5 scoring ≥6 (range: 4–8/10). The most common limitations were in the areas of subject and therapist blinding, which is unavo"]
["Kojima G. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. All four studies had adequate methodological quality."]
["Morales-Ivorra I.et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","High ROB. The risk of bias was fair in both cross-sectional studies and unclear in the randomized controlled trial."]
["Nomikos T. et al","NR","not reported"]
["Mayr H.L. et al","Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research","Moderate to low ROB. Two studies received a positive quality rating, 7 studies received a neutral quality rating, and 2 studies received a negative quality rating for methods. "]
["Padilha G.R. et al","Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool ","Moderate ROB. As for the RCTs, one was considered high risk for blinding of the investigator, participants, and evaluators. None of the RCTs presented a clear description of allocation concealment, losses, and exclusions. Only one of the cohort studies pr"]
["Wong M.Y.Z. et al","Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool ","Low ROB. Of 28 observational studies, the majority had high NOS scores, with 25 classified as “high quality” (>8 stars) and 3 classified as “moderate quality” (5–7 stars). Of the 3 interventional studies, 2 and 1 had a high-risk and medium risk of bias, r"]
["Malakou E. et al","Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool ","Low ROB. Overall, there was a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and for selective outcome reporting, with 83.3% (n = 10) of articles adequately describing selection and reporting bias. "]
["Mijatovic-Vukas J. et al","Quality Criteria Checklist from American Dietetic Association","Low ROB. There was no evidence of publication bias."]
["Aridi Y.S. et al","Quality Criteria Checklist from American Dietetic Association","Low ROB. All articles had neutral to positive scoring on the quality assessment criteria"]
["Anton S.D. et al","Cochrane risk of bias scale","Moderate ROB. A couple of studies did not report the recruitment and randomization process, but simply stated that participants had been randomized. All studies specified eligibility criteria. Participant completion rates varied widely among the studies ("]
["Bloomfield H.E. et al","AHRQ tool","Moderate ROB. Medium risk-of-bias ratings for many studies."]
["Liyanage T. et al","Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool ","Moderate ROB. Regarding the quality of the studies, four of the six studies concealed the randomized allocation sequence, no study was double-blinded, and blinded evaluations of outcomes were performed in only 3 studies. For one study, subsequent publicat"]
["Petersson S.D. et al","NR","NA"]
["Neale E.P. et al","GRADE","Low to moderate ROB."]
["Garcia M. et al","Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool ","Low to moderate ROB. Risk of bias was unclear for random sequence generation, allocation, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential sources of bias. No high or low risk of bias was found for random sequence generation, an"]
["Potter J. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low to moderate ROB. All studies were classified as being “positive” (n = 46) or “neutral” (n = 18) quality using the predefined quality tool. "]
["Steck S.E. et al","NR","NA"]
["Aljadani H. et al","JBI-MAStARI tool","Moderate to low ROB. The studies were generally of good quality, and 12 of the 16 had low risk of bias, meaning that they met at least six of the eight criteria. "]
["Koloverou E. et al","NR","NA"]
["Grosso G. et al","NR","NA"]
["Kontogianni M.D. et al","NR","NA"]
["Singh B. et al","New Castle Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies","Low ROB. All included studies were high quality, longitudinal, population-based studies with the total NOS score ≥ 8 "]
["Sofi F. et al","NR","NA"]
["Verberne L. et al","NR","NA"]
["Brown T. et al","NR","Low ROB. Methods of synthesis were appropriate."]
["Mente A. et al","NR","NA"]
["Buckland G. et al","NR","NA"]