Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of critical appraisal of quasi-experimental studies

From: Effectiveness of programs to promote cardiovascular health of Indigenous Australians: a systematic review

JBI checklist criteria (potential bias and threat)

Studies

Burgess

et al., 2011 [38]

Burgess

et al., 2015 [36]

Davey

et al., 2014 [33]

Davidson

et al., 2008 [34]

Daws

et al., 2014 [37]

Dimer

et al., 2013 [35]

1. Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. there is no confusion about which variable comes first)? (causation/reverse causation)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? (selection bias)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3. Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? (history threat/systematic difference/ contamination bias)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4. Was there a control group? (measurement bias)

No

No

No

No

No

No

5. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the intervention/exposure? (maturation threat, regression to the mean)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

6. Was follow-up complete, and if not, was follow-up adequately reported and strategies to deal with loss to follow-up employed? (attrition bias)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

7. Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way? (instrumentation/testing effects threats)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? (detection/instrument/measurement bias)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

9. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? (performance/detection bias)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Total (%) and quality ratinga

8/9 (88%)

Good

6/9 (67%)

Moderate

8/9 (88%)

Good

8/9 (88%)

Good

4/9 (44%)

Poor

8/9 (88%)

Good

  1. aGood: at least 80%, moderate: 50–80%; poor: less than 50%