14781-koppen

56 Chapter 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILE 3. Quality assessment: criteria and outcome Quality assessment criteria 1. Is method of subject selection described and appropriate? 2. Are subject characteristics sufficiently described, i.e. do they match the target population regarding to gender and age? 3. Are functional constipation and functional non-retentive fecal incontinence diagnosed appropriately? 4. Are the survey instruments reliable and valid? 5. Are the analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? 6. Were the results reported in sufficient detail? Quality assessment outcome Study, year 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. AlGhamdi, 2017 1 2 2 1 2 2 Bhatia, 2016 2 1 2 2 2 1 Bouzios, 2016 2 2 2 2 2 1 Chogle, 2016 2 2 2 2 2 1 Costa, 2011 2 2 1 1 2 2 Devanaranya, 2011 2 2 2 2 2 1 Devanaranya, 2010 1 1 2 2 2 2 Dhroove, 2016 1 2 2 2 2 2 Fraga, 2017 2 2 2 1 2 1 Inan, 2007 1 2 1 1 2 2 Jaime, 2017 2 1 2 2 2 1 Játiva, 2016 2 2 2 2 2 1 Lewis, 2016 1 2 2 2 2 2 Liu, 2009 2 2 2 1 2 1 Lu, 2016 2 2 2 2 2 1 Lu, 2017 2 2 2 2 2 2 Osatakul, 2014 2 2 2 1 2 1 Park, 2016 2 2 2 1 2 2 Phatak, 2014 2 2 2 1 2 1 Rajindrajith, 2016 1 2 2 2 2 1 Rajindrajith, 2010 2 2 2 1 2 1 Rajindrajith, 2017 2 1 2 2 2 2 Ranasinghe, 2017 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sagawa, 2013 1 2 2 2 2 2 Sampaio, 2016 1 2 2 1 2 2 Saps, 2014 2 1 2 2 2 1 Saps, 2017 2 1 2 2 2 0 Shau, 2016 2 2 2 2 2 1 Tam, 2012 2 2 2 1 2 2 Turco, 2014 2 2 2 1 2 2 Udoh, 2017 2 2 2 1 2 2 Van Tilburg, 2015 1 2 2 2 2 1 Wu, 2011 1 2 1 1 2 2 Xu, 2008 2 2 2 1 2 2 Zablah, 2015 2 2 2 2 2 1 Zhang, 2010 2 2 2 1 2 2 Zhou, 2010 2 2 2 1 2 2 No=0 points; partial=1 point; yes=2 points