VN: Types and Diversity of Vegetarian Diets (2009)
This paper describes two studies. The research purposes stated for each study are as follows.
- Study One: To delineate a portrait of people who are attracted to magical beliefs about food (MFH = Magical Food & Health beliefs)
- Study Two: To investigate the self-reported functions for the food beliefs.
- Finnish men and women
- Students or employees affiliated with several universities and vocational schools in Finland.
- Students with missing data on questionnaires in Study One
- No other exclusion criteria were specified for either study.
Recruitment
Study One
- Procedure
- Participants were recruited through six universities and 10 vocational schools in Finland
- Recruitment message sent via e-mail to students on a student e-mail list
- 54 e-mail lists were used
- 16,000 subscribed members.
- When e-mail lists were unavailable, a school employee posted the recruitment information on a communication board (either real or virtual): Potential of 4,000 students at these institutions
- Oral recruitment announcement concerning the study prior to a lecture: 280 students.
- Information provided to participants
- Participants were told that the study concerned beliefs, personality and cognition
- Participants were provided with contact information and names of researchers
- Confidentiality and voluntary nature of study was stressed
- By taking part in the study, participants were told they had a chance to win a prize
- Participants were promised feedback on their responses approximately two months after their participation
- Required that participant reveal a pseudonym, but not their identity
- Feedback consisted of:
- A general description of the phenomena studied
- Absolute scale ranges and means
- Participant's own score on each scale.
- Respondents were given between one and three weeks to participate in the study
- Researchers made efforts to:
- Prudently choose their words
- Stress that the results were based on the participant's self-description.
Study Two
- Procedure
- Participants were recruited from psychology courses at the University of Helsinki and the Open University of Helsinki, Finland
- Students selecting a vegetarian dish in a student restaurant at the University of Helsinki were asked to participate.
- Participants were told that:
- The study concerned personality and attitudes toward food and health
- Participation was voluntary
- All information would remain confidential.
Design
Cross-sectional study.
Blinding Used
All responses were stored in a relational database and all data transmissions were encrypted to ensure confidentiality.
Intervention
Study One
- Participants were asked to complete a web survey assessing the following:
- Eating status
- Magical beliefs about food
- Attitude toward alternative medicine
- Negative life events
- Desirability of control
- Intuitive thinking.
Study Two
- Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires used in Study 1 plus the following:
- Eating disorder symptoms
- Functions of MFH beliefs.
Statistical Analysis
Study One
- Correlations between variables
- Standard multiple regression analyses
- Statistical significance: P<0.05.
Study Two
- Correlations between variables
- Standard multiple regression analyses
- One-way within participants ANOVA followed by planned pair-wise comparisons
- Epsilon-corrected test
- Greenhouse-Geisser test.
- Statistical significance: P<0.05.
Timing of Measurements
Study One
Participants were given one to three weeks to complete a web survey assessing the following:
- Eating status
- I am omnivorous
- I avoid eating red meat
- I eat only fish and vegetarian food
- I am a vegetarian
- I am a vegan.
- Statements One and Two were categorized as omnivores
- Statements Three, Four and Five were categorized as vegetarians.
- Magical beliefs about food
- Assessed by the Magical Beliefs About Food and Health Scale
- Scale includes 17 items on magical thinking: Most follow the law of similarity or contagion
- Items on the scale include
- General magical beliefs (with no specific reference to animal content)
- Animal products as contaminants of food or personality
- Filler items (five questions)
- Rating
- All statements rated on a five-point scale from strongly disagree ("1") to strongly agree ("5")
- Total score calculated by averaging all items.
- Assessed by the Magical Beliefs About Food and Health Scale
- Attitude toward alternative medicine
- Participants indicated their belief in alternative medicine treatments on a six-point scale
- "0" (I do not know the therapy)
- "1" (I do not believe in the therapy at all)
- "5" (I strongly believe in the efficacy of this therapy)
- "0" was scored as "1"
- Scores were averaged into a sum score.
- 12 treatments were listed
- Chiropractic treatments
- Acupuncture
- Homeopathy
- Nature medicine (herbs)
- Large doses of vitamins or micronutrients
- Treatments of magnetic fields or Kirlian photography
- Meditation and/or mental imagery
- Stone therapy
- Color therapy
- Psychic healing
- Macrobiotics
- Living, unheated food .
- Participants indicated their belief in alternative medicine treatments on a six-point scale
- Negative life events
- Participants were asked whether they had ever and how many times they had experienced these traumatic events:
- Death of a close relative or friend
- Serious illness of a close relative or friend
- A life-threatening situation (e.g., an accident or fire)
- Rape, incest, physical assault or robbery.
- Participants were asked if they had recently experienced any of these acute crisis situations:
- Menopause or mid-life crisis (in Finland this is commonly expressed as a crisis of 30- or 40-year olds)
- Divorce
- Infidelity
- Children leaving home
- Notice to quit or unemployment
- Economical difficulties
- Requalification or change of profession
- Some other crisis.
- Scores were added together to get the amount of negative life events.
- Participants were asked whether they had ever and how many times they had experienced these traumatic events:
- Desirability of control
- Desirability of control scale was used to evaluate participants' motivation to control events in their lives
- Includes 20 seven-point items
- Rating scale from "1" (The statement doesn't apply to me at all) to "7" (The statement always applies to me)
- Sample question is "I enjoy making my own decisions."
- Desirability of control scale was used to evaluate participants' motivation to control events in their lives
- Intuitive thinking
- Assessed by the experientiality scale of the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-R)
- 20 five-point items
- Rating scale from "1" (Strongly disagree) to "5" (Strongly agree)
- Sample question is "I believe in trusting my hunches."
- Assessed by the experientiality scale of the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-R)
Study Two
- Qustionnaires were the same as those described in Study One for:
- Eating status
- MFH beliefs
- Desirability of control
- Intuitive thinking
- Negative life events.
- The Attitude Toward Alternative Medicine questionnaire contained slightly changed treatment offerings:
- Chiropractic treatments
- Naprapathic treatments
- Acupuncture
- Homeopathy
- Natural vitamins or other natural cures
- Large doses of vitamins
- Treatments of magnetic fields or Kirlian photography
- Primal therapy or Rosentherapy
- Meditation
- Stone or color therapy
- Psychic healing or shamanism
- Lifestyle diets.
- Additional questionnaires included:
- Eating disorder symptoms
- Assessed by 26-item abbreviated version of the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT)
- Rating scale from "1" (never) to "6" (always)
- Sample statement: "Find myself preoccupied with food"
- Functions of MFH beliefs
- Assessed with a Function Scale
- Includes six functions, each presented below with a sample statement
- Control ("These beliefs have clarified my view of the world")
- Social identity ("It is important for me to belong to a group of people who think this way")
- Value-expressive ("My beliefs reflect my personal values")
- Self-esteem ("My beliefs give me a feeling that I am a good person")
- Defensive ("My beliefs protect me from some anxiety")
- Utilitarian ("I might avoid something negative by thinking like this").
- Rating scale: "1" (does not reflect my opinions at all) to "5" (reflects my opinions very well)
- Function scale was presented after the MFH scale was completed
- Participants were told to fill in the scale if they at least partly agreed with any of the statements
- Six MFH statements were repeated and evaluated separately:
- Two items on general magical beliefs
- Two items on animal products as food contaminants
- Two items on animal products as personality contaminants.
- Includes six functions, each presented below with a sample statement
- Assessed with a Function Scale
- Eating disorder symptoms
Dependent Variables
MFH beliefs.
Independent Variables
- Age
- Gender
- Vegetarianism
- Alternative medicine
- Negative events
- Desire for control
- Intuitive thinking
- Desire for control and negative life events interaction variable
- Eating disorder symptoms (only in Study Two).
Control Variables
Controlled for statistically using multiple regression analysis of results.
Study One
- Initial N: 3,282 (74% female)
- Attrition (final N): 3261(21 participants excluded due to missing data)
- Age: 24±5.67 years (range 15 - 60 years)
- Ethnicity: Finnish
- Other relevant demographics
- Educational status
- 85% of all participants reported being full-time students
- 77% were university students
- 23% attended vocational school
- Wide variety of disciplines reported
- Social sciences
- Natural sciences
- Law
- Medicine
- Behavioral sciences
- Technology
- Agriculture
- Arts
- Humanities
- Business
- Service.
- 85% of all participants reported being full-time students
- Occupational status: 9% of all participants were employed full-time.
- Educational status
- Anthropometrics: No specific information was provided on anthropometric measures
- Location: Finland.
Study Two
- Initial N: 189 (84% were female)
- Attrition (final N): 189
- Age: 26.74±8.88 years (range 18 - 66 years)
- Ethnicity: Finnish
- Other relevant demographics
- Status
- 75% were full-time students: 10 fields of study
- 25% participants were employed.
- Status
- Anthropometrics: No specific information was provided on anthropometric measures
- Location: Finland.
Main Findings
- According to this study, the portrait of believers in magical food and health beliefs is:
- Female rather than male
- Vegetarian rather than omnivore
- Relied more on alternative medicine
- Thought in a more intuitive way
- Demonstrated more eating-disordered thinking
- Experienced slightly more negative life events (demonstrated in Study One).
- The most important function for MFH beliefs was the value-expressive function.
Study One
- MFH beliefs were associated with:
- Female gender
- Vegetarianism
- Positive attitude toward alternative medicine
- Negative life events
- Intuitive thinking.
- All independent variables contributed significantly to the prediction of MFH beliefs [R2=0.33, F(7,3046)=217.75, P<0.001]
- There was no correlation between desire for control and MFH, but acted by suppressing irrelevant variance in the other independent variables
- Age was not correlated with beliefs.
Correlations Between Variables in Study One
Variable | MFH Beliefs | Gender | Vegetarianism | Alternative Medicine | Negative Life Events | Desire for Control |
Gender |
-0.17***
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetarianism |
0.38***
|
-0.10***
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative Medicine |
0.44***
|
-0.14***
|
0.10***
|
|
|
|
Negative Life Events |
0.11***
|
0.00
|
0.02
|
0.14***
|
|
|
Desire for Control |
-0.03
|
0.05**
|
0.05**
|
0.02
|
|
|
Intuitive Thinking |
0.26***
|
-0.18***
|
0.07***
|
0.33***
|
0.11***
|
0.09***
|
**P<0.01
***P<0.001.
Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting MFH Beliefs in Study One
Variable | B | Beta | T |
Gender |
-0.08
|
-0.07
|
-4.27***
|
Vegetarianism |
0.53
|
0.34
|
22.45***
|
Alternative Medicine |
0.02
|
0.35
|
22.23***
|
Negative Events |
0.02
|
0.07
|
4.77***
|
Desire for Control |
-0.07
|
-0.07
|
-4.61***
|
Desire for control X Negative events |
0.01
|
0.00
|
0.19
|
Intuition |
0.10
|
0.11
|
6.61***
|
***P<0.001.
Study Two
- MFH beliefs correlated positively with
- Vegetarianism
- Positive attitude toward alternative medicine
- Eating disorder symptoms
- Intuitive thinking.
- The functions of MFH beliefs differed significantly from one another [F(3.846, 223.075)=34.18, P<0.001, η2 = 0.371]
- Age was not correlated with MFH
- Rating of importance of the MFH functions:
- Value-expressive (M=2.99; SD=0.13, P<0.02)
- Control (M=2.72; SD=0.10, P<0.02)
- Utilitarian (M=2.53; SD=0.09, P<0.02)
- Self-esteem (M=2.34; SD=0.12, P<0.02)
- Defensive (M=2.06; SD=0.10, P<0.02)
- Social identity (M=1.94; SD=0.09, P<0.02).
Correlations Between the Variables in Study Two
Variable | MFH Beliefs | Gender | Vegetarianism | Alternative Medicine | Negative Life Events | Desire for Control | Eating Disorder Symptoms |
Gender |
-0.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetarianism |
0.32***
|
-0.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative Medicine |
0.39***
|
-0.02
|
0.08
|
|
|
|
|
Negative Life Events |
0.13
|
0.04
|
0.07
|
0.19*
|
|
|
|
Desire for Control |
0.10
|
0.08
|
-0.03
|
0.06
|
0.20**
|
|
|
Intuitive Thinking |
0.21**
|
-0.19**
|
0.06
|
0.26***
|
0.18**
|
0.06
|
|
Eating Disorder Symptoms |
0.24***
|
-0.11
|
-0.04
|
0.15
|
0.12
|
0.06
|
0.02
|
*P<0.05
**P<0.01
***P<0.001.
Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting MFH Beliefs in Study Two
Variable | B | Beta | T |
Gender |
0.02
|
0.01
|
0.15
|
Vegetarianism |
0.50
|
0.36
|
5.36***
|
Alternative Medicine |
0.07
|
0.34
|
4.87***
|
Negative Events |
0.00
|
-0.01
|
-0.18
|
Desire for Control |
-0.03
|
-0.03
|
-0.46
|
Desire for Control x Negative Events |
0.01
|
0.02
|
0.23
|
Intuition |
0.13
|
0.13
|
1.91+
|
Eating Disorder Symptoms |
0.20
|
0.17
|
2.48*
|
+P<0.06
*P<0.05
***P<0.001.
Other Findings
- Age did not correlate with MFH
- MFH believers experienced slightly more negative life events (demonstrated in Study One)
- Believers and non-believers in MFH did not differ in desire for control
- The same variables that corrrelated with MFH beliefs also predicted them [R2 =0.34, F(8,150)=9.18, P<0.001].
- Changing or preventing unfounded beliefs about food, dieting and health should take into account the emotional and value-related aspects of these issues, not simply providing scientific information
- Affective information on food and health may be especially effective for people who are most prone to MFH beliefs; i.e., women, vegetarians, people with a positive attitude toward alternative medicine and people with eating disorder symptoms.
Government: | Academy of Finland (grant #200828) | ||
Not-for-profit |
|
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? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
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? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | 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 | |
2.1. | 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? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
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) | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
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.) | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | 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 | |
3.4. | 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%.) | No | |
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%.) | No | |
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? | Yes | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
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.) | Yes | |
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.) | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | Yes | |
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? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | N/A | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | No | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | No | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | N/A | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | N/A | |
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? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
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? | N/A | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | N/A | |
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? | N/A | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | N/A | |
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)? | N/A | |
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)? | N/A | |
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? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
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? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
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? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |