Skip to main content

Table 2 GRADE assessment of included studies

From: A 10 year (2000–2010) systematic review of interventions to improve quality of care in hospitals

ID Study Limitations of design (Risk of bias) Inconsistency or heterogenity Indirectness (PICO and Applicablity) Imprecision of result Publication bias Quality rating
A [30] (Aghlmand et al., 2008) Moderate
B [24] (Kalisch et al., 2007) X Low
C [27] (Curtis et al., 2008) Moderate
D [26] (Kipp et al., 2001) X X X Very Low
E [25] (Oosthuizen et al., 2002) X Low
F [29] (Brown et al., 2007) High
G [28] (Schmied et al., 2009) X Low
H [23] (Moffitt et al., 2009) X Low
I [22] (Wessels et al., 2010) X Low
J [37] (Varelas et al., 2004) Low
K [35] (Nolan et al., 2005) X Low
L [34] (Scott et al., 2000) X Moderate
M [39] (Van Zyl et al., 2004) X Low
N [36] (Feldman et al., 2006) X Very Low
O [33] (Mehta et al., 2002) Moderate
P [31] (Halm et al., 2004) Moderate
Q [32] (Meehan et al., 2001) Moderate
R [38] (Choma et al., 2009) Moderate
S [41] (Koplan et al., 2008) Moderate
T [40] (Smith et al., 2004) Moderate