Table II.
Quality assessment results for each included papera
| Quality criterion | Bearman et al.30 | Bearman et al.29 | Cepeda et al.31 | Cheng et al.28 | Cohen et al.27 | Gbaguidi-Haore et al.32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness | ||||||
| Study population description | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Inclusion/exclusion criteria | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Location/setting descriptionb | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Bias and confounding | ||||||
| Study population corresponded to larger population in all key factors | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Masking | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| How similar was the assessment of outcomes between groups | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Involvement from author | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Accounted for confounding interventions | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Compliance rate | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Description of intervention | ||||||
| Replication possible given descriptions of intervention | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Outcomes and follow-up | ||||||
| Outcome assessment procedure clearly defined | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Groups equivalent in attrition/LOS/death/patient days | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Statistical analysis | ||||||
| Description and appropriateness of methods | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Tested differences between groups and variability | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
LOS, length of stay.
a
Key: 1, not applicable; 2, inadequate, not stated; 3, partially adequate; 4, completely adequate. Columns represent each concept outlined on the quality assessment tool and each row represents an included paper.
b
Added to quality assessment tool described by Aboelela et al. (2006).