Skip to main content

Advertisement

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%