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?1 Yes/no/unclear	Comprehensive and systematic literature search?2 Yes/no/unclear	Description of included and excluded studies?3 Yes/no/unclear	Description of relevant characteristics of included studies?4 Yes/no/unclear	Appropriate adjustment for potential confounders in observational studies?5 Yes/no/unclear/not applicable	Assessment of scientific quality of included studies?6 Yes/no/unclear	Enough similarities between studies to make combining them reasonable?7 Yes/no/unclear	Potential risk of publication bias taken into account?8 Yes/no/unclear	Potential conflicts of interest reported?9       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)

1. Research question (PICO) and inclusion criteria should be appropriate and predefined
2. Search period and strategy should be described; at least Medline searched; for pharmacological questions at least Medline + EMBASE searched
3. Potentially relevant studies that are excluded at final selection (after reading the full text) should be referenced with reasons
4. Characteristics of individual studies relevant to research question (PICO), including potential confounders, should be reported
5. Results should be adequately controlled for potential confounders by multivariate analysis (not applicable for RCTs)
6. Quality of individual studies should be assessed using a quality scoring tool or checklist (Jadad score, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, risk of bias table etc.)
7. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity should be assessed; clinical: enough similarities in patient characteristics, intervention and definition of outcome measure to allow pooling? For pooled data: assessment of statistical heterogeneity using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Chi-square, I²)?
8. An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test, Hedges-Olken). Note: If no test values or funnel plot included, score “no”. Score “yes” if mentions that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
9. Sources of support (including commercial co-authorship) should be reported in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: To get a “yes,” source of funding or support must be indicated for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.