Table 3.
Grading of methodological quality of the systematic and critical reviews
| Criteria | Components | Scores | Agreed Scores for Each Review | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmed (2004) [21] |
Cox et al. (2006) [22] |
Elkan, et al. (2007) [19] |
Jones (2005) [20] |
Payne, et al. (2005) [24] |
Redman, et al. (2008) [23] |
Walshe, et al. (2009) [31] |
|||
| Specifying the objectives | precise = 2 vague = 1 implicit = 0 |
2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Searching the literature | Electronic databases, journal searches, grey literature, reference lists, unpublished sources known to experts (via personal communication)[42], author searches. | 4+methods = 2 2 or 3 = 1 0 or 1 = 0 |
1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Selecting relevant and valid studies | Search terms specified, inclusion/exclusion criteria specified, studies chosen relevant to research question[2], 2+ reviewers. | 4+methods = 2 2 or 3 = 1 0 or 1 = 0 |
2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Critical appraisal of studies | Data extraction categories relevant to research question, studies graded (or grading explicitly rejected)*. | both = 2 only one = 1 implicit = 0 |
2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Synthesis of data and presentation of findings | Table of included studies, discussion of methodological quality of studies, rigorous qualitative overview or meta-analysis (rigorous or rejected), limitations, implications for health care, implications for research. | 4+ components = 2 2 or 3 = 1 0 or 1 = 0 |
2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Total Score | 9 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | ||