Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 10;14:2. doi: 10.1186/s13229-022-00525-2
Kmet, Lee, & Cook (2004) checklist for assessing the quality of quantitative studies Hawco et al. [69] Herrington et al. [55] Hogeveen et al. [91] Kleinhans et al. [57] Koshino et al. [51] Koshino et al. [56] Larrain-Valenzuela et al. [66] Luna et al. [60] Lynn et al. [83] Massand et al. [87] Massand & Bowler [88]
1. Question/objective sufficiently described? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2. Study design evident and appropriate? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2
4. Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8. Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9. Sample size appropriate? 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1
10. Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
11. Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
12. Controlled for confounding? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
13. Results reported in sufficient detail? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
14. Conclusions supported by the results? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
Total score 21 21 22 21 20 20 22 19 21 19 20
Percentage 95% 95% 100% 95% 91% 91% 100% 86% 95% 86% 91%