Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study

Section analysed

Quality Aspects analysed

Possible Answers/Descriptions

Methods

Declaration that quality would be assessed

Yes/No - whether or not Authors clearly stated the intention to perform a quality or validity assessment

Scale/check-list declared to be used

What scale/check-list did the Authors declare they would use: none, quality components not structured in a scale/check-list format, a scale/check-list with reference not modified (ABC Cochrane Handbook, Jadad, Schulz, etc.), a scale/check-list with reference but modified, a new scale/check-list created by the Authors

Individual components declared

Allocation Concealment (or blinding of randomization)
Randomisation (or type of randomisation, generation of allocation sequence)
Blinding (or blinding of intervention, double blind, observer blinding, patient blinding, blinding of outcome measure, evaluator/assessor blinding)
Losses to follow-up (or complete follow-up, drop-outs, withdrawals)
Statistical analyses (or sample size calculation, statistical power of the study, appropriateness of statistical analyses, intention to treat/by protocol analysis)
Length of follow-up
Characteristics of groups (or baseline similarity)
Description of treatment and outcomes
Compliance with treatment
Placebo comparison
Explicit Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Items described with operative definitions

Yes/No - whether or not Authors clearly defined each quality component with operative definitions to make the QA reproducible

Scale (with point values) declared to be used

Yes/No - whether or not Authors used a scale that granted point values for each component that was assessed. If yes, was the score numerical, or ordinal (excluding the ABC scale)? If yes, was the score system of the scale defined and reproducible?

Use of QA declared

Declaration of how the Authors planned to use the QA: not specified, as criteria for exclusion of studies, as criteria to explore heterogeneity, as a factor for a subgroup analysis, as a factor for a sensitivity analysis, as a component included in a weight calculation or
for a cumulative meta-analysis

Results

QA performed after methodssection

Yes/No-whether or not Authors have effectively evaluated the quality after the methods section.

Scale or check-list actually used after the methods section

This question is the check on the Authors' declaration to assess quality in the methods section. The possible answers are the same as those listed above.

Scale (with point values) actually used after the methods section

Yes/No - whether or not Authors used a scale that granted point values for each component that was assessed (excluding the ABC scale).

Qualitative and/or quantitative uses of the QA

This question is a check on the Authors' declaration as to how they planned to use the QA. The possible answers are the same as those listed above.

All sections

Where the QA was reported

Possibilities for CSRs and PBSRs: in the text, in a table specifically dedicated to quality, in a graph; only for CSRs: in the Table of Included Studies.

Implication of QA

Yes/No/Unclear-To evaluate whether or not the QA was considered in the final results and to what extent.