Table 5.
Quality assessment of published peer reviewed studies
| Author | Study design | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Randomized controlled trials | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faal [22] | Individual randomized controlled trial | Radom sequence generation – unclear risk of bias Allocation concealment – low risk of bias Blinding of participants – not feasible Blinding of outcome assessment – unclear risk of bias Incomplete outcome data – low risk of bias Selective reporting – low risk of bias Other bias – low risk of bias |
Low risk | |||
| Fairall [51] | Cluster randomized control trial | Recruitment – low risk of bias Allocation concealment – low risk of bias Statistics – low risk of bias Number of clusters – low risk of bias Outcome – unclear risk of bias (ad-hoc analysis) |
Low risk | |||
| Muhamadi [52] | Individual randomized controlled trial | Radom sequence generation – unclear risk of bias Allocation concealment – unclear risk of bias Blinding of participants – not feasible Blinding of outcome assessment – unclear risk of bias Incomplete outcome data – low risk of bias Selective reporting – unclear risk of bias Other bias – low risk of bias |
Unclear risk | |||
| Wanyenze [39] | Individual randomized controlled trial | Radom sequence generation – low risk of bias Allocation concealment – low risk of bias Blinding of participants – not feasible Blinding of outcome assessment – unclear risk of bias Incomplete outcome data – unclear risk of bias Selective reporting – low risk of bias Other bias – unclear risk of bias |
Low risk | |||
| Hatcher [25] | Observational study with control group | 0-0-0 | 1-0 | 0-1-0 | High risk | |
| Pfeiffer [48] | Observational study with control group | 1-0-0 | 0-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Tsague [40] | Observational study with control group | 1-1-1 | 0-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Larson [23] | Observational study with control group | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Stinson [45] | Observational study with control group | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Topp [53] | Observational study with control group | 1-1-1 | 1-1 | 0-1-0 | Low risk | |
| Choun [37] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-1 | Low risk | |
| Kundu [35] | Before/after study | 1-0-1 | 0-0 | 0-1-1 | High risk | |
| Kohler [50] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-1 | Low risk | |
| Weigel [41] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Jani [21] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-1 | Low risk | |
| Youngleson [44] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 0-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Van der Merwe [46] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 0-0 | 0-1-0 | Unclear risk | |
| Burtle [49] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0-0 | High risk | |
| Killam [47] | Before/after study | 1-1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1-0 | Low risk | |
| Patten [38] | Before/after study | 1-0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0-0 | High risk |
Observational cohort studies:
Selection: studies could score a maximum of 3, the first score for representativeness of the exposed cohort, the second score for the selection of the non-exposed cohort and the third score for ascertainment of exposure.
Comparability: studies could score a maximum of 2, the first score for controlling for important factors, the second score for controlling for any additional factors.
Outcome: studies could score a maximum of 5, the first 2 scores for outcome assessment (a. independent blind assessment, b. record linkage or verification), the second score for time lineated and clear definition of outcome, the last two scores for follow-up (a. complete follow-up, b. subjects with missing outcome assessment unlikely to introduce bias).