Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of quality appraisal systematically assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for randomized controlled trials [24]

From: Modes of e-Health delivery in secondary prevention programmes for patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Author (year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SUM
Norlund et al.2018 [26] Y Y Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Thakkar et al. 2016 [27] Y Y Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 8
Chow et al.2016 [28] Y Y Y NA NA Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
Widmer et al. 2017 [29] Y U Y NA NA Y U Y U Y Y Y Y 9
Johnston et al. 2016 [30] Y U Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 7
Wolf et al. 2016 [31] U U Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 6
Fang et al. 2016 [32] Y U Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 7
Pfaeffli Dale et al. 2015 [33] Y Y Y NA NA N U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Maddison et al. 2015 [34] Y U Y NA NA Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Frederix et al. 2015 [35] Y U Y NA NA Y U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Lear et al. 2015 [36] U U Y NA NA U U U U Y Y Y Y 5
Park et al. 2015 [37] Y Y Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Park et al. 2014 [38] Y Y Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Khonsari et al.2015 [39] U N Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 7
Frederix et al. 2015 [40] Y U Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 7
Devi et al. 2014 [41] Y Y Y NA NA N U Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
Varnfield et al. 2014 [42] Y U Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 8
Vernooij et al. 2012 [43] U U Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y V Y 6
Blasco et al. 2012 [44] Y U Y NA NA U U Y Y Y Y Y Y 8
Reid et al. 2011 [45] Y Y Y NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 8
Lindsay et al. 2009 [46] U U U NA NA U U U U Y Y U Y 3
Vieira et al. 2018 [47] Y U U NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 6
Vieira et al. 2017 [48] Y U U NA NA U U Y U Y Y Y Y 6
Southard et al. 2003 [49] Y U Y NA NA U U Y U U Y Y Y 6
  1. Abbreviation: NA Not Applicable, N No, U Unclear, Y Yes
  2. Quality appraisal criteria: [24]
  3. 1. Was true randomization used for assignment of participants to treatment groups?
  4. 2. Was allocation to treatment groups concealed?
  5. 3. Were treatment groups similar at the baseline?
  6. 4. Were participants blind to treatment assignment?
  7. 5. Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment?
  8. 6. Were outcomes assessors blind to treatment assignment?
  9. 7. Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest?
  10. 8. Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed?
  11. 9. Were participants analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized?
  12. 10. Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups?
  13. 11. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?
  14. 12. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
  15. 13. Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviations from the standard RCT design (individual randomization, parallel groups) accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial.