Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 2;30(1):5–40. doi: 10.1007/s00787-019-01447-w

Table 1.

CASP quality ratings (N = 20)

References Barker et al.
[64]
Brennan et al. [49] Edwards and Hans [43] Eichler et al. [65] Gjerde et al. [61] Hannington et al. [44] Hay et al. [51] Hay et al. [48] Hay et al. [47] Korhonen et al. [70] Korhonen et al. [69] Lahti et al. [66] Leis et al. [71] Luoma et al. [67] O’connor et al. [62] O’Donnell et al. [72] Raskin et al. [60] Soe et al. [63] van de Waerden et al. [68] Woolhouse et al. [9]
1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue? In terms of…a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Is the population studied clear?b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Are the factors studied clear?b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Are the outcomes clear?b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? (selection bias)a 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Was the cohort representative of a defined population?b P P N N P P Y Y Y P P P P P P Y N P P P
Was everybody included who should have been included?b P N P P N P P P P P P P P P P P N N N N
3. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias?a 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Did they use objective measurements?b N N N N N N P P P P P P P P N P N N N N
Do the measurements truly reflect what you want them to?b Y P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias?a 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Did they use objective measurements?b P P P P P P Y Y Y P P P P P N P N N N N
Do they measures truly reflect what you want them tob Y P Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y
Was there blinding to exposure?b N N N N N N P Y Y P P P P P ? P N N P P
5. Have the authors identified all important confounding factors?a 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
Have they taken into account the confounding factors in design/analysis?b Y Y P P Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y P P Y P Y Y Y
6. Was the follow up of subjects complete enough?a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Was the follow up of subjects long enough?b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
7. What are the results of the study? Are they reported clearly?a 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Have they reported the rate or the proportion between exposedb Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
8. How precise are the results? 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
Were confidence intervals given?b N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y
9. Do you believe the results?a 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
Could it be due to bias, chance or confounding?b N P N P N N N N N P P N N N P N N N N N
Are the design/methods of this study flawed to make the results unreliable?b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
10. Can the results be applied to the local population?a 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Was the cohort the appropriate method?b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
11. Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence?a 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 1
12. Implications of this study for practice? Are they justified?a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Overall Scorea 19 14 14 12 18 20 19 19 20 15 16 19 18 18 17 17 12 13 19 18
Qualitative Descriptor (0 unacceptable; + acceptable; ++ High Quality)a ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ + + + + ++ ++

aThe main questions are the 1–12 (score 0 = criterion not met, 1 = mixed evidence, 2 = criterion met)

bThe questions prompt to the main questions to aid scoring (Y = yes; N = no; P = partial