Evidence Library

Quality Rating Summary

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
			Cranney, Horsley et al, 2007 [2.c. Vit D Supplementation on Circulating 25(OH)D]	Talwar SA, Aloia JF et al, 2007	Viljakainen H, Palssa A et al, 2006
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
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?		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
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)		Yes	Yes

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


Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
			Cranney, Horsley et al, 2007 [2.c. Vit D Supplementation on Circulating 25(OH)D]	Talwar SA, Aloia JF et al, 2007	Viljakainen H, Palssa A et al, 2006
Overall Quality Rating
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	Yes
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	Yes
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	Yes
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	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
	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
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes