Additional file 1 of The association between health-related quality of life and problem gambling severity: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Survey for England

Additional file 1

A systematic review and meta analysis of the clinical effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate for symptom management of intermittent claudication (2012)

Assess clinical effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline or inositol nicotinate for symptom management of intermittent claudication

Impact of adjusting for internal and external bias in the Trolle study.

<p>Impact of adjusting initially for internal bias and subsequently for both internal and external bias (using pooled internal bias-adjusted results) on the odds ratio (and 95% interval), for each assessor separately and combined using median pooling.</p

Summary of characteristics of studies comparing RAADP to control, with reported odds ratios for sensitisation.

<p>Summary of characteristics of studies comparing RAADP to control, with reported odds ratios for sensitisation.</p

Potential internal biases identified in the studies.

<p>Potential internal biases identified in the studies.</p

Impact of adjusting for bias in the meta-analysis of 10 studies comparing RAADP to control.

<p>(a) unadjusted odds ratios (with 95% CIs); (b) odds ratios adjusted for internal biases (with 95% CIs); (c) odds ratios adjusted for all biases (with 95% CIs).</p

Exploratory analysis comparing different dose regimens.

<p>For each of seven RAADP treatment regimens: elicited relative effectiveness compared to an optimally effective treatment (67% intervals pooled across assessors); observed odds ratios comparing RAADP to control (with 95% intervals), where available; and odds ratios expected in a future study comparing RAADP to control (with 95% intervals), obtained from a fitted meta-regression model. (Higher values for relative effectiveness compared to an optimal treatment correspond to lower odds ratios compared to control.).</p

Elicitation scales.

<p>Elicitation scales for quantifying additive biases on a relative risk scale and for quantifying proportional biases as proportional change to (log) relative risk.</p

Biases in the Trolle study.

<p>(a) 67% ranges elicited from assessors A–D for additive internal biases, with means and 67% ranges for total internal bias; (b) 67% ranges elicited from assessors E–H for proportional external biases, with means and 67% ranges for total external bias.</p