| Quality measure |
Details |
Score |
Comments |
| QA question 1 |
Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? |
1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. |
general but concrete description of aims |
| QA question 2 |
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. |
published protocol mentioned (with the Campbell Collaboration) |
| QA question 3 |
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. |
empirical qualitative and quantitative studies |
| QA question 4 |
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
1 = “Yes” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g. language), AND searched the reference lists / bibliographies of included studies, searched trial/study registries, included/consulted content experts in the field, where relevant, searched for grey literature, conducted search within 24 months of completion of the review. |
22 databases, experts and web, grey literature included |
| QA question 5 |
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to include OR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80%), with the remainder selected by one reviewer. |
2-3 reviewers participated |
| QA question 6 |
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
1 = “Yes” = either ONE of the following: at least two reviewers achieved consensus on which data to extract from included studies OR two reviewers extracted data from a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 8 %), with the remainder extracted by one reviewer. |
2 reviewers participated |
| QA question 7 |
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
1 = “Yes” = provided a list of all potentially relevant studies that were read in full-text form but excluded from the review AND justified the exclusion from the review of each potentially relevant study. |
Appendix II |
| QA question 8 |
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? |
1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. |
Table 2 |
| QA question 9 |
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? |
1 = “Yes” = specifically mentions RoB assessment of individual included studies. |
adopted Thomas H. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies Effective Public Health Practice Project, Hamilton, Canada. |
| QA question 10 |
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? |
0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. |
not provided |
| QA question 11 |
If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 12 |
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 13 |
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? |
1 = “Yes” = included only low risk of bias studies OR the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results. |
considerd in analyses and discussion |
| QA question 14 |
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? |
1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. |
considerd in analyses and discussion |
| QA question 15 |
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 16 |
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? |
1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. |
funding statement provided |
| Quality index |
Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. |
A |
protocol, 2-3 reiewers involved in sreenig and extractions, study quality considered |
| Suggested review type |
Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. |
systematic review |
N/A |
| Risk of bias level |
How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? |
low |
protocol, 2-3 reiewers involved in sreenig and extractions, study quality considered |