Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment of articles (adapted from Durant [19] and von Elm et al. [18])

From: Identifying the participant characteristics that predict recruitment and retention of participants to randomised controlled trials involving children: a systematic review

Authors and date

Quality assessment item (see key below)

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

%

Aylward et al.,1985 [22]

2

1

1

1

0

2

1

1

2

2

1

0

0

0

50 %

Baker et al., 2011 [23]

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

0

2

0

2

64 %

Boggs et al., 2004 [24]

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

1

75 %

Byrnes et al., 2012 [25]

2

2

1

1

2

1

Na

2

2

1

2

2

0

2

77 %

Constantine et al., 1993 [26]

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

0

2

0

68 %

Cunningham et al., 2000 [28]

2

1

1

1

2

1

Na

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

46 %

Cunningham et al., 1995 [27]

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

0

0

57 %

Damashek et al., 2011 [29]

2

2

1

1

1

1

Na

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

69 %

Daniels et al., 2011 [30]

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

76 %

Eisner and Meidert, 2011 [31]

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

0

1

2

1

0

54 %

Fernandez and Eyberg, 2009 [32]

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

0

1

61 %

Firestone and Witt, 1982 [33]

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

0

1

57 %

Gross et al., 2001 [34]

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

0

2

2

0

1

71 %

Heinrichs et al., 2005 [35]

2

2

2

1

2

1

Na

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

65 %

Ireys et al., 2001 [36]

2

2

2

1

1

1

Na

2

2

1

0

1

1

0

62 %

Katz et al., 2001 [37]

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

0

1

0

0

1

54 %

Mihrshahi et al., 2002 [39]

2

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

42 %

Miller and Prinz, 2003 [40]

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

2

64 %

Moser et al., 2000 [41]

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

0

0

64 %

Multicentre Otitis Media Study Group, 2001 [38]

2

1

2

2

1

2

Na

1

2

0

2

1

2

0

69 %

Ramos-Gomez et al., 2008 [42]

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

86 %

Roggman et al., 2008 [43]

2

1

1

1

0

2

0

1

1

1

2

0

0

2

50 %

Van den Akker et al., 2003 [44]

1

1

1

1

1

2

Na

1

2

0

1

1

1

0

50 %

Vermaire et al., 2011 [49]

2

1

1

1

0

2

Na

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

65 %

Wagner et al., 2003 [45]

2

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

71 %

Werba et al., 2006 [46]

2

2

0

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

0

1

71 %

Winslow et al., 2009 [47]

2

2

2

1

2

1

Na

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

85 %

Zebracki et al., 2003 [48]

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

89 %

  1. Key
  2. 1. Does the paper explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported?
  3. 2. Are specific objectives stated, including any pre-specified hypotheses?
  4. 3. Are key elements of study design and original trial explained in enough detail?
  5. 4. Are setting, locations, and the study sample described clearly in terms of sample size and characteristics?
  6. 5. Are lengths of exposure/intervention provided for applicable groups, i.e. control and intervention or just intervention if only measuring this group?
  7. 6. Is the study size large enough to test the hypotheses?
  8. 7. If a longitudinal retention study, are details given of the efforts to maintain the sample? i.e. payments, contacts made etc.?
  9. 8. Are the findings presented clearly, objectively and in sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge the results for himself/herself?
  10. 9. Are the findings internally consistent, i.e. do the numbers add up properly, can the different tables be reconciled, etc.?
  11. 10. Were appropriate variables or factors controlled for or blocked during the analysis?
  12. 11. Do the investigators present sufficient data in tables and in the text to adequately evaluate the results?
  13. 12. Are limitations of the study discussed, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision?
  14. 13. Do the authors discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results?
  15. 14. Are recommendations for future research made?
  16. Score
  17. 0 – inadequate description
  18. 1 – fair description
  19. 2 – adequate description
Back to article page

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215