Scribd
Upload
40 views

Table 1

This document contains a quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. It consists of 14 criteria with scores of 1 (criterion is met) or 0 (criterion is not met) for 4 articles. The total scores show that Articles 2, 3, and 4 mostly met the quality criteria, scoring 12, 11, and 11 respectively, while Article 5 fully met the criteria scoring 11.

Uploaded by

Urbanus Madur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views

Table 1

This document contains a quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. It consists of 14 criteria with scores of 1 (criterion is met) or 0 (criterion is not met) for 4 articles. The total scores show that Articles 2, 3, and 4 mostly met the quality criteria, scoring 12, 11, and 11 respectively, while Article 5 fully met the criteria scoring 11.

Uploaded by

Urbanus Madur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1

Supplementary Table 1: Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies

Article Number 2 3 4 5
Criteria
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 1 1 1 1

2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? 1 1 1 1

3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 0 0 0 0

4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the 1 1 1 1
same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and
applied uniformly to all participants?

5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? 1 1 1 1

6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) 1 1 1 1
being measured?

7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between 1 1 1 1
exposure and outcome if it existed?

8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the 1 1 0 1
exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as
continuous variable)?

9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and 1 1 1 1
implemented consistently across all study participants?

10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? 1 1 1 1
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and 1 1 1 1
implemented consistently across all study participants?

12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? 0 0 0 0

13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? 1 1 1 1

14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact 1 0 1 0
on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?

Total 12 11 11 11

You might also like