Evidence Library

Quality Rating Summary

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
			Boivin M and Levy H, 2001	Booth CM, Heyland DK, et al 2002	Esparza J, Boivin M et al, 2001	Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R et al, 2003	McClave SA, DeMeo MT, et al 2002	Pinilla JC, Samphire J, et al 2001	Yavagal DR, Karnad DR, et al 2000
Overall Quality Rating
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the research question clearly stated?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?	Yes		???			Yes	???
	3.	Were study groups comparable?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?	Yes		Yes			No	No
	5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?	No		No			No	???
	6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?	Yes		Yes			No	No
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes
	10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes


Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
			Boivin M and Levy H, 2001	Booth CM, Heyland DK, et al 2002	Esparza J, Boivin M et al, 2001	Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R et al, 2003	McClave SA, DeMeo MT, et al 2002	Pinilla JC, Samphire J, et al 2001	Yavagal DR, Karnad DR, et al 2000
Overall Quality Rating
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?		Yes		Yes	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?		Yes		Yes	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		Yes		Yes	Yes