| 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? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Only partial description |
priority lists were pre-defined, but there was no protocol for the search, screening and assessment (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| QA question 3 |
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. |
clinical
evidence and environmental studies; justified (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| QA question 4 |
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. |
1 database (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| QA question 5 |
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. |
No description how many reviewers participated (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| QA question 6 |
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. |
at least 1 reviewer assessed (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| QA question 7 |
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. |
not provided |
| QA question 8 |
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? |
0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies |
only general narrative description in the text |
| 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? |
0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. |
not provided (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| 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 (methods described in Jacobs DE, Brown MJ, Baeder A, et al. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: introduction and methods. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2010;16(5S):S5-S10) |
| 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? |
0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. |
not provided |
| 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. |
general 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 sources disclosed in "Disclaimer" |
| 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. |
C |
no full protocol, very little details, no summary of included studies, bias might be present |
| Suggested review type |
Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. |
scoping 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? |
medium |
no protocol; search details missing; mostly one person involved per type of intervention |