Criteria for assessment in JBI
|
---|
JBI for quasi-experimental
|
---|
Study
|
Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’?
|
Were the participants included in any comparisons similar?
|
Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest?
|
Was there a control group?
|
Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the intervention/exposure?
|
Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed?
|
Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way?
|
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?
|
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
|
---|
Lee et al. [13]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Malagón-Amor et al. [39]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Law et al. [74]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
?
| ✓ |
Yokoyama et al. [18]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
?
|
N/A
|
Chan [75]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
JBI for case control
|
---|
Study
|
Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls?
|
Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls?
|
Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls?
|
Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way?
|
Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls?
|
Were confounding factors identified?
|
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
|
Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls?
|
Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful?
|
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
|
---|
Katsuki et al. [65]
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ |
N/A
| ✓ |
JBI for analytical cohort
|
---|
Study
|
Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population?
|
Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups?
|
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Were confounding factors identified?
|
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
|
Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study?
|
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur?
|
Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored?
|
Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?
|
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
|
---|
Yuen et al. [35]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
JBI for analytical cross-sectional
|
---|
Study
|
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
|
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
|
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
|
Were confounding factors identified?
|
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
|
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
|
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
|
---|
Kondo et al. [40]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Krieg and Dickie [37]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Nagata et al. [64]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Chan and Lo [4]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Uchida and Norasakkunkit [58]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Umeda et al. [63]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Yuen et al. [41]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Yong and Nomura [43]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
Wu et al. [42]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
|
?
| ✓ | ✓ |
JBI for prevalence cross-sectional
|
---|
Study
|
Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
|
Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?
|
Was the sample size adequate?
|
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
|
Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
|
Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
|
Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
|
Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
|
Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?
|
---|
Koyama et al. [62]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Malagón-Amor et al. [59]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Chauliac et al. [38]
| ✓ | ✓ |
N/A
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
N/A
|
Frankova [61]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
JBI for case series
|
---|
Study
|
Were there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series?
|
Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series?
|
Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?
|
Did the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants?
|
Did the case series have complete inclusion of participants?
|
Was there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study?
|
Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?
|
Were the outcomes or follow up results of cases clearly reported?
|
Was there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information?
|
Was statistical analysis appropriate?
|
---|
Teo et al. [36]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
JBI for Case Reports/Studies
|
---|
Study
|
Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described?
|
Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline?
|
Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described?
|
Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described?
|
Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described?
|
Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described?
|
Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described?
|
Does the case report provide takeaway lessons?
|
---|
Sakamoto et al. [47]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Hattori [73]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Suwa and Suzuki [51]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
Teo [49]
|
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Overjero et al. (2014)
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Ranieri [46]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
?
| ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Kato et al. [44]
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ |
X
|
Ranieri [46]
|
?
| ✓ | ✓ |
?
|
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Matsuguma et al. [77]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Silić et al. (2019)
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Roza et al. [72]
|
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
JBI for Qualitative
|
---|
Study
|
Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology?
|
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives?
|
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data?
|
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data?
|
Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results?
|
Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?
|
Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice- versa, addressed?
|
Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?
|
Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?
|
Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data?
|
---|
Ogino [56]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
X
| ✓ |
Kaneko [52]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Wong and Ying [54]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Wong [6]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
|
?
|
?
| ✓ |
Wong [70]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Tajan [11]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Rubinstein [71]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ | ✓ |
Yong and Kaneko [57]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Li and Wong [53]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
?
| ✓ |
Criteria for assessment for MMAT
|
---|
MMAT for mixed method
|
---|
Study
|
Are there clear research questions?
|
Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?
|
Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?
|
Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?
|
Are the findings adequately derived from the data?
|
Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?
|
Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?
|
Are the participants representative of the target population?
|
Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and exposure/intervention?
|
Are there complete outcome data?
|
Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?
|
During the study period, is the intervention/exposure administered as intended?
|
Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?
|
Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?
|
Are the results adequately brought together into overall interpretations?
|
Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?
|
Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
|
---|
Chan and Lo [60]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Chan [76]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Chan [55]
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
X
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
- ✓, Yes; X, No; Question Mark (?) , Unclear or Can’t tell; N/A, Not applicable; JBI, Joanne Brigg’s Institute Appraisal Tool; MMAT, Mixed Method Appraisal Tool.