Quality Rating Summary
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
||
| 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) | |
| 2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | |
| 3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | |
| 4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | |
| Validity Questions | ||
| 1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | |
| 2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | |
| 3. | Were study groups comparable? | |
| 4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | |
| 5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | |
| 6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | |
| 7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | |
| 8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | |
| 10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | |
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
||
| Overall Quality Rating | ||
| Relevance Questions | ||
| 1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | |
| 2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | |
| 3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | |
| 4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | |
| Validity Questions | ||
| 1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | |
| 2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | |
| 3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | |
| 4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | |
| 5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | |
| 6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | |
| 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? | |
| 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? | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | |
| 10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | |
