Seems to be observational
Is this interventional because patients are (all) assigned to a diagnostic test, which is then evaluated? Also, an intervention (the test) is specified.
Registered as interventional, but seems to be observational according to interventions
Maybe the paper is a byproduct of the registered trial, but it does not follow the registered design, interventions and outcomes.
Seems to be observational but registered as interventional without specific intervention.
NCT used for scoring
Paper reports crossover of patients given specific circumstances, but not registered.
Does not seem to be interventional, will not rate Int-Q
registered as single group assignment but has three arms
insufficient
Does not seem to be interventional, will not rate Int-Q
Trial seems to be observational instead of interventional
Seems to be a crossover instead of a single-arm design
Title indicates open study, but design section has "open = no". Also two intervention regimes but neither parallel nor crossover.
Not sure how crossover works. 3 interventions. Marked as controlled, but all interventions marked as test.
Registration mentions "partial cross-over" design, but this is not reported or did not take place
Parallel and double blind according to title but registered as non-parallel and open
no info

NA; Typo? Target lesion <28mm in article, but >28mm in register

no info on measurement or criteria of infection and neutropenia
Inclusion criteria do not fit cohorts: Observational study of Hirschprung's disease (key) but IC mention only bowel resection
unspecific criteria for PFIC (which genes, when is s-BA elevated?)
No criteria for disease under investigation
criteria unclear or not available in register ("see section 3")
Criteria imply "takes any asthma medication" and should normally define asthma disease status, but the latter is not even mentioned
no inlcusion criteria mentioned in paper
Unclear what other studies the criteria refer to ("in a tanezumab study", "during the tanezumab study")
additional criterion in article: "an increase of FEV1 with the use of 400 μg of albuterol of less than 10%"
"based on prolonged cold ischemia times" not mentioned in register
"Patients undergoing primary and emergency midline laparotomy" rated as sufficient
Very simple design, so no measures necessary
How is ovulation measured? Criteria more specific in paper.
criteria more specific in paper: "disease activity as evidenced by at least one clinically documented relapse within 12 months before randomization or a brain magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan, obtained within 6 weeks before randomization, that showed at least one gadoliniumenhancing lesion."
Reference to criteria from ACTIVE A but unclear where to find those. Paper: Only some criteria could be checked.
Reference to criteria from two other trials, but unclear where to find those.
No contradictions, but some criteria more specific in register (required liver biopsy is not mentioned in paper) and some more specific in paper (HIV-1 coinfection with cutpoint >= 6 months)
Criteria more specific in paper (e.g. additional "Cardiovascular exclusion criteria were unstable hypertension")
Cutpoint for inclusion changed from >= 3 to "with stable HF New
York Heart Association (NYHA) functional  class II–IV".
Exclusion criteria more specific in register. Inlcusion identical
Inclusion criteria more specific in paper
Definition of progression missing; Criteria more specific in article
Inclusion criteria differ a bit, for example register "with a history of episodic cluster headache with at least two cluster periods lasting from 7 days to 1 year (when untreated) and separated by pain-free remission periods of >=1 month" vs. In article "required to have had a cluster headache period that had lasted at least 6 weeks"
Mean Hb lower value 9 in article instead of 10
BMI cutoff 40 in article, 35 in register
definition of fibrosis; criteria more specific in register
In register children 6-12, in article 6-17y
age range 20-50 in article instead of >18
Missing: Patients assigned to that specific emergency unit
The given criteria on gender and age obviously don't apply (but were mandatory, it seems) here, because the trial refers to hospitals. Unclear if there were any criteria for selecting hospitals.
"Seasonal prophylaxis of influenza in immunocompromised subjects" as goal of trial, but no such inclusion criteria specified
NA; Age 18-65 (with exceptions for older patients) in register, 19-72 in article. "Participants with mild depressive symptoms on antidepressant treatment can be included if there is a history of moderate or severe symptoms during the current depressive episode" only mentioned in register
Missing exact cutpoints for disease scores