Table 3.
Quality ratings for the 14 included studies on the basis of an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale22
| Quality criterion | Overall quality rating¶ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representative* | Reliably measured distress† | Comparable on confounders‡ | Adequate outcome and follow-up§ | ||
| Akyuz et al 200637 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Low |
| Anderheim et al 200547 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Low |
| Boivin and Takefman 19957 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | High |
| de Klerk et al 200840 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Average |
| Demyttenaere et al 199236 | 0 | 1 | Not reported | 1 | Low |
| Demyttenaere et al 199835 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | High |
| Ebbesen et al 200948 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Klonoff-Cohen et al 200139 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Average |
| Lancastle and Boivin 200510 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Average |
| Lee et al 200641 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Not reported | Low |
| Lintsen et al 200949 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Merari et al 200238 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | High |
| Sanders and Bruce 199934 | 0 | 1 | Not reported | 1 | Low |
| Verhaak et al 200120 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
*The representativeness criterion was met when ≥80% of women eligible were invited and 80% agreed to participate, or when sample size >300 (1 point).
†The reliability criterion was met when reliable and valid methods were used to assess anxiety or depression (1 point).
‡The comparability criterion was met when studies showed evidence that at study entry the pregnant and not pregnant groups were equivalent on the prognostic indicators of age, previous use of assisted reproductive technology, parity, and duration of infertility (2 points) or comparable on at least two of these indicators (1 point)
§The quality of outcome and follow-up criterion was met when the completion rate (agreed to participate/analysed) for patients undergoing the cycle was ≥80% (1 point).
¶The overall quality rating was low (0 to 2 points), average (3 points), or high (4 or 5 points).