Table 1.

Criteria from Kuper & Levinson (2008) applied in appraising studies; a study cunducted by Falk et al. (2007) was appraised as an example

Was what the researchers did clear?	Yes, researchers explicated aim, methodology (e.g. sampling, inclusion criteria, data gathering) results and analysis with a clear scenario.
Was the sample used appropriate to its research question?	Yes, it was a phenomenology study. Sampling has clearly been articulated. 17 patients living with CHF who had personal experiences about HF to address the research question. Sample size was broad enough to capture many aspects of the CHF. However, they did not acknowledge socioeconomic situation and other associated factors
Were the data collected appropriately?	Yes, setting had been justified for data collection. Data were collected through recorded interviewing that is appropriate for exploring experiences of stakeholders in a phenomenology. Question as “what do you mean?” was used that is fit for phenomenological studies. Data collection was done by nurses familiar with CHF and continued to achieve data saturation.
Were the data analyzed appropriately?	Yes, The study had a clear description of data analysis process. Subcategories, categories and themes were derived from data by separate interpreters and then compared and combined. Some quotas from original data were used for supporting findings.
Can the results of this study be transferred to other settings?	Researchers did not discuss transferring results to other populations; however, they gave recommendations for caregivers and patients in general.
Did the study adequately address potential ethical issues?	Yes, researchers had a comprehensive presentation of ethical issues including achieving approval from ethics committee and chief physician plus informing the participants about study followed by consent from them