Skip to main content
. 2024;24(4):420–432.

Table 2.

Levels of quality of individual studies: (JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist).

Randomized Controlled Trials (Tufanaru et al., 2020 [27])
Kim S.K. et al., 2017[31] Lee et al., 2018[32] Yoon H.S. et al., 2020[33 Park et al., 2021[34] Jung et al., 2021[35] Sharma et al., 2023[36] Ghavipanje V. et al., 2022[43] Najafi Ghagholestani et al., 2022[45] Kararti et al., 2023[44]
Was true randomization used for assignment of participants to treatment groups? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was allocation to treatment groups concealed? Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were treatment groups similar at the baseline? Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were participants blind to treatment assignment? No Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes No No No
Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment? Yes Unclear Unclear No No No Yes Unclear No
Were outcome assessors blind to treatment assignment? Yes Unclear Unclear No No No Yes No Yes
Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analysed? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Were participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomized? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Unclear
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviations from the standard RCT design (individual randomization, parallel groups) accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial? Yes No Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Unclear Unclear
% Score 76.92% 46.15% 53.84% 61.53% 53.84% 84.61% 92.30% 46.15% 61.53%
Final appraisal (Quality) High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High High Low Moderate
Non-Randomized Experimental Studies (Tufanaru et al., 2020[28])
D.H. Kim et al., 2018[29] Son et al., 2017[37] Mousavi et al., 2022[46] Yoon H.S. & You J.S.H. 2017[42]
Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? Yes N/A Unclear No
Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/ care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? Yes N/A Yes Yes
Was there a control group? No No Yes Yes
Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the interventions /exposure? No No No No
Was follow up complete or if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analysed? N/A No Unclear Yes
Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparison measured in the same way? Yes Yes Unclear Yes
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? Yes Yes No No
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? Yes Yes Yes Yes
% score 66.66% 44.44% 44.44% 66.66%
Final Appraisal (Quality) Moderate Low Low Moderate
Observational studies (Analytical Cross-sectional) (Moola et al., 2017[26])
D.H. Kim et al., 2016[30] Lee J. et al., 2022[39] Kuo et al., 2021[38] Madle et al., 2022[40] J. Novak et al., 2021[41]
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were the study subjects and the setting described in the detail? Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were confounding factors identified? No No Yes No No
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? No No No No No
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes
% Score 62.5% 75% 50% 62.5% 62.5%
Final Appraisal (Quality) Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate