Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment (Based on Moncrieff et al., 2001)

From: Does GP training in depression care affect patient outcome? - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Criterion Score and rating criteria
(1) Objectives and specification
main outcomes a priori
0 = objectives unclear
1 = objectives clear but main outcomes not specified a priori
2 = objectives clear with a priori specification of main method
for assessment of outcome
(2) Adequate sample size (n per group) 0 = inadequate (< 50/group)
1 = moderate (50-100/group)
2 = large (> 100/group or justified by power calculations)
(3) Appropriate duration of trial including follow up 0 = too short (< 3 months)
1 = reasonable length (3-6 months)
2 = long enough for assessment of long term outcomes (6-12 months)
(4) Power calculation 0 = not reported
1 = mentioned without details
2 = details of calculations provided
(5) Method of allocation 0 = unrandomized and likely to be biased
1 = partially or quasi randomized with some bias possible
2 = randomized allocation
(6) Concealment of allocation 0 = not done or not reported
2 = concealment of allocation code detailed
(7) Clear description of treatments (including doses of drugs used) and adjunctive treatments 0 = main treatments not clearly described
1 = inadequate details of main or adjunctive treatments
2 = full details of main and adjunctive treatments
(8) Blinding of subjects 0 = not done
1 = done but no test of blind
2 = done and integrity of blind tested
(9) Source of subjects described and representative sample recruitment 0 = source of subjects not described
1 = source of subjects given but no information on sampling or use
of unrepresentative sample (for example, volunteers)
2 = source of subjects described plus representative sample taken
(for example, all consecutive admissions or referrals, or random
sample taken)
(10) Use of diagnostic criteria (or clear specification of inclusion criteria) 0 = none
1 = diagnostic criteria or clear inclusion criteria
2 = diagnostic criteria plus specification of severity
(11) Record of exclusion criteria and number of exclusions and refusals reported 0 = criteria and number not reported
1 = criteria or number of exclusions and refusals not reported
2 = criteria and number of exclusions and refusals reported
(12) Description of sample demographics 0 = little/no information (only age/sex)
1 = basic details (for example, marital status/ethnicity)
2 = full description (for example, socioeconomic status,
clinical history)
(13) Blinding of assessor 0 = not done
1 = done but no test of blind
2 = done and integrity of blind tested
(14) Record of number and reasons for withdrawal by group 0 = no info on withdrawals by group
1 = withdrawals by group reported without reason
2 = withdrawals and reason by group
(15) Outcome measures described clearly (and therefore replicable) or use of validated (or referenced) instruments 0 = main outcomes not described clearly
1 = some of main outcomes not clearly described 2 = main outcomes clearly described or valid and reliable
instruments used
(16) Information on comparability and adjustment
for differences in analysis
0 = no information on comparability
1 = some information on comparability with appropriate
adjustment
2 = sufficient information on comparability with appropriate adjustment
(17) Inclusion of all subjects in analyses (Intention to treat analysis) 0 = no
2 = yes
(18) Presentation of results with inclusion of data forre-analysis of main outcomes (for example, SDs) 0 = little information presented
1 = adequate information
2 = comprehensive
(19) Appropriate statistical analysis (including correction for multiple tests where applicable) 0 = inadequate
1 = adequate
2 = comprehensive and appropriate
(20) Conclusions justified 0 = no
1 = partially
2 = yes
(21) Declaration of interests (for example, 0 = no
source of funding)
0 = no
2 = yes