In the first step, we selected systematic reviews if the authors clearly reported participants as "children" or "adolescents" in the title and objectives.
dClassified as: yes, if there was an attempt to standardize treatment and care besides the assigned interventions; no, if no attempt to standardize was applied; uncertain, if it was not clearly reported.
Treatment of minor trichiasis was not associated with any improvement in vision but the differential effect of treatment, if any, was not clearly reported.
Finally, although blinding may be particularly difficult to accomplish in QI trials, this should be clearly reported; if outcome assessment is not blinded, risk of bias could still be limited by using objective outcomes.
In Reacher 1992 eyes receiving surgery for major trichiasis on average had half a line improvement in Snellen acuity (P < 0.001) but the difference between the intervention groups (if any) was not clearly reported.
We will score 'yes' if the study enrolled only TB patients with suspected resistance to second-line drugs, including patients with confirmed MDR-TB; 'no' if the study enrolled TB patients with confirmed resistance to second-line drugs; and 'unclear' for all other scenarios or if it was not clearly reported.
5) Analysis of data clearly reported If the analysis of data was sufficiently described, the criterion was assessed as 'done.' If the analysis of data was not sufficiently described, it was assessed as 'not done' and in cases where it was not specified in the paper, it was assessed as 'not clear'.
If the status was not clearly reported in the original report, we systematically contacted the corresponding author up to three times.
If the item was not clearly reported, it was considered as a "no" response and the unclear category would simply be duplication.
If study selection criteria are not clearly reported then this item should be scored as "no".
