Table 1 Methodological quality appraisal
Trenkwalder 1992 [46] | Arendt 1994 [47] | Beckley 1998 [50] | Bauer 2005 [7] | Dellepiane 2005 [48] | Simmonds 2005 [49] | Scott 2007 [35] | Richert 2011 [8] | Bauer 2011 [22] | Sullivan 2011 [21] | Erlandson 2012a [10] | Erlandson 2012b [18] | Cohen 2012 [45] | Beans 2013 [43] | Mbada 2013 [44] | Richert 2014 [9] | Erlandson 2014 [12] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Research question/objective clearly stated? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2 | Study population clearly specified and defined? | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3 | Participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | N | CD | CD | Y | Y | Y | Y | CD | N | CD |
4 | All subjects recruited from similar populations? Eligibility criteria pre-specified and applied uniformly? | NR | N | N | Y | NR | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
5 | Justification of sample size? | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
6 | Exposure(s) measured prior to outcome(s)?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
7 | Sufficient timeframe to see an association between exposure and outcome?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
8 | Different levels of the exposure measured, as related to the outcome? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
9 | Exposure measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? | NR | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | Y |
10 | Exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | CD | N |
11 | Outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? | CD | NR | NR | NR | CD | Y | Y | NR | Y | NR | N | N | N | Y | Y | NR | CD |
12 | Outcome assessors blinded to exposure status? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
13 | Loss to follow-up after baseline ≤20%?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
14 | Key potential confounders measured and statistically adjusted for? | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Total CAT score /14 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | |
Total CAT % | 7.14 | 21.43 | 21.43 | 50 | 14.29 | 42.86 | 50 | 42.86 | 42.86 | 42.86 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 57.14 | 42.86 |