ONC: Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (2007)

Citation:

Iastra JA, Fibbe WE, Zwinderman AH, Romijn JA, Kromhaut D.  Parenteral nutrition following intensive cytotoxic therapy: an exploratory study on the need for parenteral nutrition after various treatment approaches for haematological malignancies.  Bone Marrow Transplantation, (1999) 23, 933–939.

PubMed ID: 10338050
 
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort study
Class:
B - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

The purpose of the research was:

  • To identify differences in parenteral nutrition [PN] requirements associated with different standard protocols for bone marrow transplantation
  • To determine the difference between the number of times PN was indicated and the number of times PN was actually administered
  • To identify the characteristics of patients who were able to meet their nutritional needs without the administration of PN
Inclusion Criteria:

Data was analyzed retrospectively for all consecutive patients who:

  • Received intensive cytotoxic therapy in the study facility between 1993 and 1998
    • High-dose chemotherapy with or without total body irradiation
    • Eventually followed by BMT
    • Resulted in a neutropenic period (< 0.1 x 109/1 neutrophils) for at least 7 days
  • Participated in a nutritional monitoring program while on the BMT unit
Exclusion Criteria:
  • (1st patient cohort) Patients requiring a second remission induction course due to refractory acute myelogenous leukemia [AML]
  • (2nd patient cohort) Only patients receiving their first BMT were included
  • (3rd patient cohort) Patients who received a protocol which did not include total body irradiation, or which included an HLA-mismatched protocol
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment:

  • Data was analyzed retrospectively for all consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria

Design:

  • The researchers carried out three analyses of the data; each analyses had its own patient cohort:
    • (Analysis #1) Comparative longitudinal analysis of three clinical phases of treatment for acute myelogenous leukemia [AML]
      • Patient cohort for analyses #1 consisted of patients treated for primary AML according to the EORTC LAM-10 protocol
        • Remission induction phase
          • Cytarabine 100 mg/m2 by continuous IV infusion/10 days, for total dose of 1000 mg/m2
          • Etoposide 100 mg/m2 once daily, days 1 -5 for total dose 500 mg/m2
          • Either idarubicin 10 mg/m2 (total dose 30 mg/m2), daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 (total dose 150 mg/m2), or mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 (total dose 36 mg/m2), on days 1, 3, and 5
        • Consolidation phase
          • Cytarabine 500 mg/m2 twice daily from days 1 to 6 (total dose 6000 mg/m2)
          • Either idarubicin 10 mg/m2 (total dose 30 mg/m2), daunorubicin 50 mg/m2 (total dose 150 mg/m2), or mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 (total dose 36 mg/m2), on days 4, 5, and 6
        • Conditioning phase
          • Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -5 and -4 (total dose 120 mg/kg)
          • Single dose total body irradiation 9 Gy on day 0
    • (Analysis #2) Comparative cross-sectional analysis of four conditioning regimens for BMT
      • Patient cohort for analyses #2 consisted of patients undergoing BMT for hematological malignancies
        • Four conditioning regimens were compared:
          • BEAC regimen
            • 300 mg/m2 BCNU one daily on day -6
            • 200 mg/m2 cytarabine and 200 mg/m2 etoposide on days -5, -4, -3, -2, and 140 mg/m2 on day -1
            • Autologous bone marrow transplant
          • Cycolphosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -5 and -4, followed by total body irradiation [TBI] 9 Gy on day 0, followed by autologous BMT
          • Cycolphosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -5 and -4, followed by TBI 9 Gy on day 0, followed by allogeneic BMT from an HLA-matched donor
          • Cycolphosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -5 and -4, followed by TBI 9 Gy on day 0, and 5 consecutive days  5 mg Campath-1G (days -8 to -3), followed by allogeneic BMT from an HLA-mismatched matched donor
    • (Analysis #3) Comparative cross-sectional analysis of personal and medical characteristics of patients requiring or not requiring PN in a homogenous group of BMT patients
      • Patient cohort for analyses #3 consisted of patients who underwent a conditioning regimen consisting of Cycolphosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -5 and -4, followed by total body irradiation 9 Gy on day 0, followed by either autologous or allogeneic BMT from an HLA-matched donor
        • Regimens which did not include total body irradiation, or which included an HLA-mismatched protocol, were excluded from this analyses in order to provide a heterogenous patient group
  • Nutritional monitoring
    • Energy and protein requirements were estimated
      • Energy: TEE was estimated as 140% Harris-Benedict [HB]
      • Protein: Protein requirement was estimated at 1.5 g/kg actual body weight
    • Goal intake was 70% estimated energy requirement, and 1.0 g/kg protein
    • Oral food intake was recorded three times per week
      • Energy and protein content of oral intake was calculated using a computerized Dutch nutrient table
    • Patients received nutrition counseling aimed at improving oral food/beverage intake
      • Snacks and supplements were recommended on an individual basis
    • Criteria for initiating PN was 2 consecutive oral energy intakes < 50%, with no improvement expected within 1 week
  • GI care
    • All patients received prophylactic GI care, including:
      • Stomatitis prevention
        • Local antibiotics 3 times daily
        • Careful tooth brushing
      • Nausea prevention
        • Routine seratonin antagonist
        • Other anti-emitics as indicated
      • Protective isolation
      • Low microbial diet
      • Decontamination of the gut with oral non-absorbable antibiotics
  • Criteria for administration of PN (NOTE: These criteria were applied retrospectively to the patients in the data base)
    • Severe malnutrition at start of therapy
      • Presence of at least one of the following: baseline serum albumin <30 g/l; body mass index [BMI] < 18.5 kg/m2
    • OR a prolonged period of inadequate oral intake
      • Three or more measurements of oral intake (over a period of at least 7 days)  <10% estimated energy requirement; or five or more measurements of oral intake (over a period of at least 11 days) with oral energy intake < 50% the individual's estimated energy requirement
    • OR severe weight loss during admission for BMT, defined as weight loss > 10% admission weight between admission and discharge

Blinding used: N/A

Statistical Analysis:

  • In Analysis #1, non-parametric variables were tested by the Friedman-rank test; dichotomous variables were tested by the Cochran Q test
  • In Analysis #2, comparison of the four sub-groups was carried out by the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-parametric data, and by the Fisher exact test for dichotomous variables
  • In Analysis #3, comparison of the two groups was carried out by the Student's t-test for parametic variables, and by the Mann-Whitney test for non-parametric variables
    • Throughout the study:
      • Results of parametric data were expressed as means and standard deviation
      • Non-parametric data were expressed as median and inter-quartile range
      • Dichotomous variables were expressed as frequency and percentage

     

     

     

  • Data Collection Summary:

    Timing of Measurements:

    • Data of all consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria between 1993 and 1998 were analyzed retrospectively

    Dependent Variables

    • PN requirements associated with different conditioning regimens
    • PN indicated vs PN administered
    • Characteristics of patients who met nutritional goals without PN

    Independent Variables

    • Intensive cytotoxic therapy
    • Type of conditioning regimen

    Control Variables

    • Hematological malignancy

     

    Description of Actual Data Sample:

    Initial N:

    • Analysis #1:  N = 20 (13 males, 7 females)
    • Analysis #2:  N = 93
      • Auto-BMT without TBI: N = 16 (75% male)
      • Auto-BMT with TBI: N = 28 (61% male)
      • Allo-BMT with TBI, HLA-matched: N = 30 (60% male)
      • Allo-BMT with TBI, HLA-mismatched: N = 12 (50% male)
    • Analysis #3: N = 58
      • No PN support: N = 16 (50% male)
      • PN support: N = 42 (64% male)

    Attrition (final N):

    • Analysis #1: Initial N was 50 patients admitted for remission induction; only 20 of these patients proceeded to consolidation treatment and BMT
    • Analysis #2:  Initial N was 93 patients; 7 patients died within 1 week following BMT, and their data was not included in analysis due to incompleteness
    • Analysis #3: N/A

    Age:

    • Analysis #1:  Age 44 + 10 years
    • Analysis #2:
      • Auto-BMT without TBI: Age 47 (35 - 58 years)
      • Auto-BMT with TBI: Age 46 (34-54 years)
      • Allo-BMT with TBI, HLA-matched: Age 39 (30-47 years)
      • Allo-BMT with TBI, HLA-mismatched: Age 31 (21-38 years)
    • Analysis #3:
      • No PN support: Age 42 + 10 years
      • PN support: Age 40 + 12 years

    Ethnicity: Not mentioned

    Location: Center for Rehabilitational and Nutritional Sciences, University Hospital Utrecht, The Netherlands

     

    Summary of Results:

     Analysis #1: Clinical characteristics of patient cohort (N = 20)*

    Clinical Characteristics

    Days since diagnosis

    Remission induction phase

    0

    Consolidation phase

    48 (40-57)

    BMT

    139 (120-180)

    Statistical Significance of Group Difference

    Initial weight (kg)

    72.5 (61-85)

    70.5 (57-82)

    72.3 (59-85)

    p = 0.009

    BMI (kg/m2)

    23.5 (21.1-26.1)

    22.5 (20.9-24.8)

    23.1 921.8-26.7)

    p = 0.002 

    Serum albumin (g/l)

    40 (38-46) 41 (39-44) 42 (40-44) NS

    Duration of hospitalization (days)

    33 (29-39) 29 (26-31) 36 (30-43) p = 0.004)

    Mean oral intake (%REE)

    64 (46-81) 106 (82-139) 93 (71-113) p = 0.007

    Duration PN (days)

    18 (12-25) 0 (0-11) 9 (7-26) p = 0.002

    Weight loss (% start weight)

    4.0 (1.7-7.4) 2.0 (0.8-4.2) 5.6 (3.8-9.6) p = 0.001

     *Weight and BMI were lowest at beginning of the consolidation phase.  The consolidation phase reported the shortest length of stay, highest mean oral intake, least number of days on PN, and lowest loss of weight.

     Analysis #1: Number of patients meeting criteria for PN in each phase of treatment**

    PN criteria

    Remission induction phase (%)

    Consolidation phase (%)

    BMT

    Statistical Significance of Group Difference

    Serum albumin < 30 g/l

    2 (10)

    0

    0

    NS

    BMI < 18.5 kg/m2

    3 (15) 

    2 (10) 

    2 (10) 

     

    NS 

    >7 days with no intake per os

    11 (55) 1 (5) 6 (30)  p = 0.002 
    >11 days with <50% required energy intake per os 13 (65)  4 (20)  8 (40)  p = 0.01 

    Clinical weight loss >10%

    2 (10)  5 (25)  p = 0.04 
    PN indicated 16 (80)  7 (35)  12 (60)  p = 0.004 
    PN given 19 (95)  9 (45)  16 (80)  p = 0.002 

    *The consolidation phase had the lowest requirement for PN.  In all phases, PN was administered more than it was indicated.

    Analysis #2: Clinical characteristics of patient cohort (N = 93)*

    Clinical Characteristics

    Auto-BMT without TBI

    N = 16

    Auto-BMT + TBI

    N = 28

    Allo-BMT +TBI, HLA-matched

    N = 30

    Allo-BMT + TBI, HLA-mismatched

    N = 12

    Statistical Significance of Group Difference

    Initial weight (kg)

    78 (64 - 89)

    77 (67-88)

    77 (67-85) 74 (67-86)

    NS

    BMI (kg/m2)

    23.8 (21.9-28.7)

    24.7 (22.2-27.1)

     24.7 (22.2-26.6) 25.4 (21.2-26.7)

    NS

    Serum albumin (g/l)

    44 (41-47) 42 (40-44) 43 (40-46)  44 (43-47) NS

    Duration of hospitalization (days)

    28 (25-34) 36 (29-41) 37 (33-43) 48 (42-82) p = 0.001

    Mean oral intake (%REE)

    84 (69-122) 105 (76-140) 94 (74-130) 76 (47-89) NS

    Duration PN (days)

    8 (0-14) 7 (0-19) 9 (2-22) 20 (5-55) NS

    Weight loss (% start weight)

    4.0 (1.7-7.4) 2.0 (0.8-4.2) 5.2 (3.0-8.2) 5.6 (3.8-9.6) NS

    *Duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients undergoing allogeneic transplant.

    Analysis #2: Number of patients meeting one criteria for PN in four BMT groups (N=93)**

    Clinical Characteristics

    Days since diagnosis

    Auto-BMT without TBI

    N = 16

    Auto-BMT + TBI

    N = 28

    Allo-BMT +TBI, HLA-matched

    N = 30

    Allo-BMT + TBI, HLA-mismatched

    N = 12

    Statistical Significance of Group Difference

    Serum albumin < 30 g/l

    0

    0

    0

    NS

    BMI < 18.5 kg/m2

    0

    1 (4%)

    4 (13%)  0

    NS

    >7 days with no intake per os

    5 (30%) 7 (25%) 9 (30%)  6 (50%) NS

    >11 days with <50% required energy intake per os

    6 (37%) 11 (39%) 12 (40%)  11 (92%) p = 0.01

    Clinical weight loss >10%

    1 (6%) 5 (18%) 5 (17%) 2 (17%) NS

    PN indicated

    6 (37%) 14 (50%) 17 (58%)  11 (92%) p = 0.03

    PN given

    12 (75%) 19 (70%) 23 (77%)  10 (83%) NS

    **The allo-BMT+TBI, HLA-mismatched group demonstrated the longest period of reduced oral intake, as well as the greatest percentage of patients requiring PN.  In all groups, PN given exceeded PN indicated. 

    Analysis #3: Differences between patients requiring vs not requiring PN in patients conditioned for BMT with cyclophosphamide and TBI (N=58)*

    Clinical Characteristics

    No PN

    N = 16 (28%)

    PN

    N = 42 (72%)

    Statistical Significance of Group Difference

    Gender (% male)

    50%

    64%

    NS

    Age (years)

    42 + 10

    40 + 12

    NS

    Diagnosis:

    AML

    Other

     

    56%

    44%

     

    67%

    33%

     

    NS

    NS

    Transplant type:

    Auto

    Allo

     

    56%

    44%

     

    45%

    55%

     

    NS

    NS

    Serum albumin at baseline (g/l)

    41.8 +  4.3 42.4 + 3.0 NS

    BMI at baseline (kg/m2)

    27.0 + 4.5 23.9 + 3.6 p = 0.01

    *The no-PN group maintained oral intake of at least 70% and 1.0 g/kg protein.  BMI at admission was significantly different in the two groups.  There were no significant differences in weight loss during admission between the two groups (-5% in no-PN group vs -6% in PN group).

     

    Author Conclusion:
    The authors found that PN is not indicated or needed for all patients undergoing intensive cytotoxic therapy.  They concluded that routine screening for severe malnutrition at outset of therapy, coupled with careful monitoring of oral intake during therapy, are practical clinical tools that promote appropriate and individualized decisions regarding the need for PN in this patient population.
    Funding Source:
    Industry:
    NUMICO Research
    Food Company:
    Reviewer Comments:
    • Well-designed retrospective cohort study, with weaknesses inherent in the retrospective design
      • Study results dependent on the accuracy of medical records compiled without intent for use in research
    • Clinical measurements such as body weight and oral food intake are prone to error
    • The researchers mentioned that the occurence of vomiting/diarrhea may have led to overestimation of energy intake
    • Changes in hydration status related to administration of PN may cause errors in measurement of actual body weight; however, the researchers attempted to compensate for this by measuring weight at admission and discharge only
    • Large number of eligible patients admitted for remission induction were excluded from analysis #1 (only 20 of 50 patient records were analyzed) due to high drop-out from treatment, including patients who did not reach remission, patients who relapsed early, and patients who died before transplant could occur
      • The researchers compared PN indicated/PN given for included and excluded patients, and identified no significant differences
    • Patient population may not have been representative
    Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
    Relevance Questions
      1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
      2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
      3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
      3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
      4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
     
    Validity Questions
      1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
    1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
      1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? N/A
      1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? N/A
      1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? N/A
      1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? N/A
      1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
      1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
      2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? N/A
    2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? N/A
      2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
      2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
      2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
      2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
      2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
      2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
      2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
      2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
      3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
    3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
      3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) ???
      3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) ???
      3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
      3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
      3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
      3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
      3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
      3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
      3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
      3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
      3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
      3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
      4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
    4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
      4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
      4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
      4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
      4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
      4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
      4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
      4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
      4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
      4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
      4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
      5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? N/A
    5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? N/A
      5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
      5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
      5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
      5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
      5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? ???
      5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? ???
      5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
      5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
      5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
      5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
      6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
    6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
      6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
      6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
      6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
      6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
      6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
      6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
      6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
      6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
      6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
      6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
      6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
      6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
      6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
      6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
      6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
      6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
      7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
    7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
      7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? N/A
      7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? N/A
      7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
      7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
      7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
      7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
      7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
      7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
      7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
      7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
      7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
      7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
      7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
      7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
      8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
    8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
      8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
      8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
      8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
      8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
      8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
      8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
      8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? No
      8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? No
      8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
      8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
      8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? N/A
      8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? N/A
      8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
      8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
      9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
    9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
      9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
      9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
      9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
      9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
      10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
    10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
      10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
      10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
      10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? ???
      10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? ???