Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
||||||||||||
Hodge AM, English DR et al, 2007 | Jakobsen et al 2009 | Laaksonen et al 2005 | Liou et al 2007 | Mozaffarian D, Ascherio A et al, 2005 | Oh K, Hu FB et al, 2005 | St-Onge et al 2007 | Thijssen and Mensink 2005 | Thijssen et al 2005 | Zhao et al 2004 | |||
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 | ||||||||||
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | ||||||||||
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | ||||||||||
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | ||||||||||
Validity Questions | ||||||||||||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | ||||||||||
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | ||||||||||
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | ||||||||||
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | ||||||||||
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | ||||||||||
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | ||||||||||
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | ||||||||||
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | ||||||||||
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | ||||||||||
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | ||||||||||