Skip to main content
. 2010 Mar;54(1):24–32.

Table 3.

Article quality scoring using a scoring method adapted from Downs and Black3

No. Brief Item Description Mckelvey et al16 Balon et al5 Graham and Pistolese10 Bronfort et al8 Nielsen et al17 Leboeuf-Yde et al14 Gibbs9 Green11
1 Hypothesis/aim/objective described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
2 Main outcomes to be measured described? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
3 Characteristics of patients described? 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
4 Interventions of interest clearly described? 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
5 Distributions of confounders described? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
6 Main findings clearly described? 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
7 Estimates of random variability in data? 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
8 Important adverse events reported? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Described patients lost to follow-up? 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
10 Actual probability values reported except where P value <.001? 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
11 Subjects asked to participate representative of population? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Subjects prepared to participate representative of population? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 Staff, places, and facilities representative of treatment majority of patients receive? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 Attempt made to blind subjects? 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
15 Attempt made to blind those measuring the outcomes to intervention? 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
16 Any of the results based on “data dredging,” was this made clear? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 Analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or is time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
18 Statistical tests appropriate? 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
19 Compliance with treatments reliable? 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
20 Outcome measures valid/reliable? 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
21 Patients in intervention groups or cases and controls recruited from same population? 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
22 Subjects in different intervention groups or cases and controls recruited over same period? 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
23 Subjects randomized to groups? 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
24 Randomized assignments concealed until recruitment was complete? 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
25 Adjustment for confounding in analyses? 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
26 Losses to follow-up accounted for? 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
27 Sufficient power to detect clinically important effect where P value for difference due to chance is < 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Total Score (/27) 7 22 7 20 20 15 9 5