You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Methodological quality of the trials meeting the inclusion criteria

From: Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: A systematic review

  Hall [20] Rossum [8] Dalby [21] Stuck [15] Haastregt [23] Yamada [22] Hout [19] Bouman [12]
Descriptive items         
1 Were eligibility criteria clearly specified + + + + + + + +
2 Were index and control interventions explicitly described + + + + + + + +
3 Was there a description of whether adverse effect had or had not occurred - + + + + + + +
4 Was a short-term follow-up measurement (directly after the intervention) performed + + + - + + + +
5 Was a long-term follow-up measurement (6+ months after the intervention) performed - - - + + - - +
Statistical items         
6 Was the sample size for each group described + + + + + + + +
7 Were point estimates and measures of variability presented - + + + + + + +
Validity items         
8 Was treatment allocation concealed + + + + + ? + +
9 Were groups similar at baseline regarding age, sex, outcome - + - - + + + +
10 Were co-interventions avoided or comparable ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
11 Was compliance acceptable in all groups ? + ? ? + + ? +
12 Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention + + + + + + + +
13 Was the withdrawal/dropout rate acceptable (max of 20% for short-term follow-up and 30% for long-term follow-up) - + + + + + - +
14 Was timing of the outcome assessment in both groups comparable + + + + + + + +
15 Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis ? + + + + + + +
Sum score validity items         
   + 3 7 5 5 7 6 5 7
   ? 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
   - 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
  1. Notes: scores +, criterion fulfilled; -, criterion not fulfilled; ?, data not provided or unclear (The results of the study by van Hout et al. have not been published yet; questions 3, 7, 9 and 13 were assessed from unpublished information; questions 10 and 11 could not be assessed.)