Skip to main content

Table 3 Grading of methodological quality of the systematic and critical reviews

From: Appraisal of literature reviews on end-of-life care for minority ethnic groups in the UK and a critical comparison with policy recommendations from the UK end-of-life care strategy

Criteria

Components

Scores

Agreed Scores for Each Review

Ā Ā Ā 

Ahmed (2004)

[21]

Cox et al. (2006)

[22]

Elkan, et al. (2007)

[19]

Jones (2005)

[20]

Payne, et al. (2005)

[24]

Redman, et al. (2008)

[23]

Walshe, et al. (2009)

[31]

Specifying the objectives

Ā 

precise = 2

vague = 1

implicit = 0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Searching the literature

Electronic databases, journal searches, grey literature, reference lists, unpublished sources known to experts (via personal communication)[42], author searches.

4+methods = 2

2 or 3 = 1

0 or 1 = 0

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

Selecting relevant and valid studies

Search terms specified, inclusion/exclusion criteria specified, studies chosen relevant to research question[2], 2+ reviewers.

4+methods = 2

2 or 3 = 1

0 or 1 = 0

2

0

1

0

1

1

1

Critical appraisal of studies

Data extraction categories relevant to research question, studies graded (or grading explicitly rejected)*.

both = 2

only one = 1

implicit = 0

2

0

1

0

0

2

2

Synthesis of data and presentation of findings

Table of included studies, discussion of methodological quality of studies, rigorous qualitative overview or meta-analysis (rigorous or rejected), limitations, implications for health care, implications for research.

4+ components = 2

2 or 3 = 1

0 or 1 = 0

2

0

2

1

1

2

2

Total Score

Ā Ā 

9

4

7

4

5

7

8

  1. *As the grading of qualitative studies is controversial [43, 44], an explicit rejection of grading, with justification, was accepted.