From: Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review
Study | Kennedy et al. 2010 | Taylor et al. 2010 | Daker-White et al. 1999 | Sephton et al. 2010 | Campos-Ayling et al. 2002 | McClellan et al. 2006 | Richardson et al. 2005 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item Evaluation Criteria (maximum = 1; mimimum = 0)*‡ | |||||||
1. Relevant background cited to establish a foundation for research question | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
2. Adequate description of the study setting and patients characteristics | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
3. Inception cohort sampled | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
4. Data collection process administered by independent evaluators | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
5. Respondents informed that their results are anonymous or not shared with treatment providers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
6. Standardized satisfaction tool/measure used with known validity and reliability; Item | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
7. Timing of data collection sufficiently close to care treatment/encounter as to minimise recall bias; | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
8. Accounted for missing data; | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
9. ≥ 80% of eligible patients sampled | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
10. Clearly defined measurements of components of satisfaction: | |||||||
a. Affability/Patients centeredness and interpersonal interactions with providers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
b. Process (accessibility, availability, efficiency of care) | 1 | N/A | 1 | N/A | 1 | N/A | 0 |
c. Perceived competency of professionals | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
d. Satisfaction with outcomes | 1 | 1 | 0 | N/A | 1 | 1 | N/A |
11. Appropriate statistical test(s) performed; | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
12. Conclusions and clinical recommendations supported by the study objectives, analysis and results | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Total score (%) | 93% | 71% | 71% | 69% | 67% | 57% | 36% |
Rank | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |