Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 5;8:3. doi: 10.1186/s13047-014-0059-0

Table 2.

Quality assessment scores from the Quality index tool [21]

Quality index items Moretti [26] Saggini [27] Wang [28] Wang [29] Schaden [17]
Reporting
1. Study hypotheses/aim/objective 1 0 1 1 1
2. Main outcomes 1 1 1 1 1
3. Participant characteristics 1 1 1 1 1
4. Interventions of interest 1 0 1 1 1
5. Distribution of principal confounders 1 1 0 1 1
6. Main findings 1 1 1 1 1
7. Estimates of random variability 1 0 1 0 1
8. Adverse events described 0 1 0 1 1
9. Participants lost to follow up described 1 0 1 1 1
10. Actual probability values reported 0 0 0 1 1
External validity
11. Were subjects asked to participate representative of population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0 0 0
12. Were subjects prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0 0 0
13. Were the staff, places and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment patients received? 1 1 0 1 1
Internal validity (bias)
14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? 0 0 0 0 0
15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? 0 0 0 0 0
16. If any of the results of the study were based on ‘data dredging’ was this made clear? 1 1 1 0 1
17. Does analysis adjust for lengths of follow up or is the time period between intervention and outcome the same? 0 0 0 0 0
18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? 0 1 0 1 1
19. Was compliance with the intervention reliable? 1 1 1 1 1
20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? 1 0 1 1 0
Internal validity (selection bias)
21. Were cases and controls recruited from the same population? 0 0 1 1 0
22. Were cases and controls recruited over the same period of time? 1 1 1 0 1
23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups? 1 0 1 1 0
24. Was randomised intervention assignment concealed from participants/researchers until recruitment complete? 0 0 0 0 0
25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analysis from which the main findings were drawn? 0 * 0 0 1
26. Were losses to follow up of patients taken into account? 1 0 1 1 1
Power
27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect? * * * * *
Total score% 55 38 52 59 63

Notes:

All questions were scored on the following scale: yes = 1, unable to determine = 0, no = 0.

Question 5 is an exception with scores allocated: yes = 2, partially = 1, no = 0.

*Item removed.