Reiniging, desinfectie en sterilisatie (herbruikbare) medische hulpmiddelen - Module 8 Quality-assessment-tabel
Table of quality assessment for systematic reviews of diagnostic studies
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)
Research question:
|
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 |
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 |
|
Olafsdottir, 2017 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes. Risk of bias was present in the included studies - Risk of design bias The studies were conducted in high-volume centers. High-volume institutions might have more proficient reprocessing staff with higher quality of cleaning. - It is unclear if the age and condition of the duodenoscopes affected the relationship between ATP (Adenosinetrifosfaat ) RLU (Relative Light Unit ) and culture results -Sampling bias: convenience sampling only -Misclassification bias: different cut-offs used |
Not relevant. Studies were not pooled |
Yes |
Yes In 2 of the studies, the authors reported a potential conflict of interest as a consultant, inventor of a proprietary ATP-related testing assay, and/or invited speaker sponsored by a company involved with duodenoscopes or ATP testing assays (Olympus and 3M) |