Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 29;2016:6016532. doi: 10.1155/2016/6016532

Table 2.

Quality of article included in this review using Downs and Black scale.

Measures Ebnezar et al., 2012 [16] Ebnezar et al., 2012 [17] Ebnezar and Yogitha, 2012 [18] Cheung et al., 2014 [19] Kolasinski et al., 2005 [20] Brenneman et al., 2015 [21] Ebnezar et al., 2012 [22] Nambi and Shah, 2013 [23] Ghasemi et al., 2013 [24]
Clear description of the following?
(1) Hypothesis/aim/objective 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(2) Main outcome 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(3) Characteristics of participants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(4) Intervention of interest 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(5) Distribution of principal confounders in each group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
(6) Main findings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(7) Estimates of random variability for main outcomes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(8) All important adverse events that may be a consequence of intervention 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
(9) Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
(10) Actual probability values for main outcomes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
External validity
(11) Were invitees representative of the population from which they were recruited? 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
(12) Were subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the population from which recruited? 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
(13) Were the staff, places, and facilities representative of the treatment that the majority of subjects received? 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Internal validity
(14) Was an attempt made to blind subjects to the intervention they received? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(15) Was an attempt made to blind those measuring main outcomes of the intervention? 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
(16) If any results were based on “data dredging,” was this made clear? 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
(17) In trials and cohort studies, did analyses adjust for length of follow-up? Or, in case-control studies, was the period between intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
(18) Were appropriate statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
(19) Was compliance with the intervention reliable? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(20) Were main outcome measures reliable and valid? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Internal validity-confounding (selection bias)
(21) For trials and cohort studies, were patients in different intervention groups? For case-control studies, were cases and controls recruited from the same population? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
(22) For trials and cohort studies, were subjects in different intervention groups? For case-control studies, were cases and controls recruited over same period of time? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
(23) Were subjects randomized to intervention groups? 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
(24) Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and staff until recruitment was complete? Was it irrevocable? 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
(25) Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in analyses from which main findings were drawn? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(26) Were losses of subjects to follow-up taken into account? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
Power
(27) Was there sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect when p < 0.05? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total score (maximum 32) 17 17 17 23 18 16 17 11 13

A score of 23 or higher indicates good-quality article with low risk of bias.

A score between 22 and 13 indicates medium-quality article with moderate risk of bias.

A score of 12 or lower represents a poor-quality article with high risk of bias [25].