Articles were evaluated with the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.
Primary outcome was the rate of decline as evaluated with the revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R).
The first 10 papers were then re-evaluated with the revised checklist.
All cases were evaluated using the revised European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) diagnostic criteria.
Treatment activity was evaluated using the revised RECIST guidelines (Therasse et al, 2000).
Self-esteem was evaluated through the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents-Revised (SPPA-R) [ 34].
The readers, together with the adviser, evaluate the revised essay and determine if the exam constitutes a pass.
We decided to revise 3 items and prospectively evaluate the revised scale (MG-QOL15r) using either 3, 4, or 5 responses.
To evaluate the appropriateness of the revised definitions, ratings of the revised definitions were compared with the ratings of the original definitions used in round one.
Methodological quality was assessed individually by two observers through the revised Jadad score system [ 33].
MH, SAS and GSH supervised the work, evaluated the results and revised the manuscript for publication.
