Blaaskatheterisatie Module 4 Quality-assessment-tabel
Table of quality assessment for systematic reviews of RCTs and observational studies
|
Study
First author, year |
Appropriate and clearly focused question? Yes/no/unclear |
Comprehensive and systematic literature search? Yes/no/unclear |
Description of included and excluded studies? Yes/no/unclear |
Description of relevant characteristics of included studies? Yes/no/unclear |
Appropriate adjustment for potential confounders in observational studies? Yes/no/unclear/not applicable |
Assessment of scientific quality of included studies? Yes/no/unclear |
Enough similarities between studies to make combining them reasonable? Yes/no/unclear |
Potential risk of publication bias taken into account? Yes/no/unclear |
Potential conflicts of interest reported?
Yes/no/unclear |
|
Cooper, 2016 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not applicable |
Yes, risk of bias is present For Priefer (1982) risk of bias was assessed as high due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. Sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment was unclear
|
Not applicable (no meta-analysis performed) |
No (however only one study was included for this specific comparison) |
Yes |
Based on AMSTAR checklist (Shea et al.; 2007, BMC Methodol 7: 10; doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10) and PRISMA checklist (Moher et al 2009, PLoS Med 6: e1000097; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097)