Footguard

Table with the assessment results: each row shows a question, and columns show the answers of assessor 1 and assessor 2
Questions	Assessor 1	Assessor 2
5. Are appropriate definitions included for the terms “ulcer”, “healing”, and all other required aspects of the population and the outcomes?	No	Yes
6. Was the choice of study population appropriate for the chosen intervention and the stated conclusions?	No	Yes
7. Was there a control population that was managed at the same time as those in the intervention group or groups?	No	Yes
8. Is the intervention sufficiently well described to enable another researcher to replicate the study?	No	Yes
9. Are the components of other aspects of care described for the intervention and comparator groups?	No	Yes
10. Were the participants randomised into intervention and comparator groups?	No	Yes
11. Were the participants randomised by an independent person or agency?	No	Yes
12. Was the number of participants studied in the trial based on an appropriate sample size calculation?	No	Yes
13. Was the chosen primary outcome of direct clinical relevance?	No	Yes
14. Was the person who assessed the primary outcome or outcomes blinded to group allocation?	No	Yes
15. Were the clinical researcher who cared for the wound at research visits and the participants blinded to group allocation?	No	Yes
16. Did the study complete recruitment?	No	Yes
17. Was it possible to document the primary outcome in 75% or more of those recruited?	No	Yes
18. Were the results analysed primarily by intention-to-treat analysis?	No	Yes
19. Were appropriate statistical methods used throughout?	No	Yes
20. Was the performance in the control group of the order that would be expected in routine clinical practice?	No	Yes
21. Are the results from all participating centres comparable? Answer “yes” if the study was done in only one centre	No	Yes
22. Is the report free from errors of reporting—eg, discrepancies between data reported in different parts of the report?	No	Yes
23. Are the important strengths and weaknesses of the study discussed in a balanced way?	No	Yes
24. Are the conclusions supported by the findings?	No	Yes
25. Is the report free from any suggestion that the analysis or the conclusions could have been substantially influenced by people with commercial or other personal interests in the findings?	No	Yes

Compare grading

# -

5 # - Are appropriate definitions included for the terms “ulcer”, “healing”, and all other required aspects of the population and the outcomes?

6 # - Was the choice of study population appropriate for the chosen intervention and the stated conclusions?

7 # - Was there a control population that was managed at the same time as those in the intervention group or groups?

8 # - Is the intervention sufficiently well described to enable another researcher to replicate the study?

9 # - Are the components of other aspects of care described for the intervention and comparator groups?

10 # - Were the participants randomised into intervention and comparator groups?

11 # - Were the participants randomised by an independent person or agency?

12 # - Was the number of participants studied in the trial based on an appropriate sample size calculation?

13 # - Was the chosen primary outcome of direct clinical relevance?

14 # - Was the person who assessed the primary outcome or outcomes blinded to group allocation?

15 # - Were the clinical researcher who cared for the wound at research visits and the participants blinded to group allocation?

16 # - Did the study complete recruitment?

17 # - Was it possible to document the primary outcome in 75% or more of those recruited?

18 # - Were the results analysed primarily by intention-to-treat analysis?

19 # - Were appropriate statistical methods used throughout?

20 # - Was the performance in the control group of the order that would be expected in routine clinical practice?

21 # - Are the results from all participating centres comparable? Answer “yes” if the study was done in only one centre

22 # - Is the report free from errors of reporting—eg, discrepancies between data reported in different parts of the report?

23 # - Are the important strengths and weaknesses of the study discussed in a balanced way?

24 # - Are the conclusions supported by the findings?

25 # - Is the report free from any suggestion that the analysis or the conclusions could have been substantially influenced by people with commercial or other personal interests in the findings?