Table 2

Quality of the twelve studies as assessed by the Jadad score [34]

Study

Randomization

Blinding

Withdrawals and dropouts

Quality Score

Barraud et al. [30]

2

2

1

5

Besselink et al. [33]

2

2

1

5

Forestier et al. [31]

2

2

1

5

Giamarellos-Bourboulis et al. [23]

1

2

0

3

Kanazawa et al. [24]

1

1

0

2

Knight et al. [32]

2

2

1

5

Morrow et al. [22]

1

2

1

4

Rayes et al. [25]

2

0

1

3

Rayes et al. [26]

2

1

1

4

Spindler-Vesel et al. [28]

1

1

0

2

Tan et al.[29]

2

1

1

4

Each article was scored using a five-point scale that evaluates randomisation, blinding and completeness of patient follow-up (Jadad scale). One point was given if the study was described as randomised. An additional point was given if the randomisation method was described and was appropriate (for example, computer-generated table of random numbers), whereas a point was subtracted if the randomisation method was described and inappropriate. Similarly, one point was assigned to studies described as double-blinded, two points were assigned to studies for which the double-blinding method was described and appropriate (for example, identical placebo, active placebo,double-dummy) and zero points were assigned to studies for which the double-blinding method was described and inappropriate. One point was given if the article specified the numbers of and reasons for withdrawals and dropouts.

Liu et al. Critical Care 2012 16:R109   doi:10.1186/cc11398