Skip to main content

Table 3 Percentage of studies scoring ‘Yes’ for quality assessment criteria (Kmet et al. [31]; Collins et al. [32])

From: The rise of rapid implementation: a worked example of solving an existing problem with a new method by combining concept analysis with a systematic integrative review

Criteria n %
Qualitative Criteria
1 Question/objective sufficiently described? 21 100
2 Study design evident and appropriate? 21 100
3 Context for the study clear? 20 95
4 Connection to a theoretical framework / wider body of knowledge? 21 100
5 Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified? 4 19
6 Data collection methods clearly described and systematic? 4 19
7 Data analysis clearly described and systematic? 4 19
8 Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility? 3 14
9 Conclusions supported by the results? 19 90
10 Reflexivity of the account? 6 29
Quantitative Criteria
1 Question / objective sufficiently described? 4 100
2 Study design evident and appropriate? 4 100
3 Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? 4 100
4 Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described? N/A N/A
5 If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? N/A N/A
6 If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A
7 If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A
8 Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to measurement / misclassification bias?
Means of assessment reported?
3 100
9 Sample size appropriate? 4 100
10 Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? 4 100
11 Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results? 4 100
12 Controlled for confounding? 4 100
13 Results reported in sufficient detail? 4 100
14 Conclusions supported by the results? 4 100
  1. Note. Not all criteria were applicable for all studies; QAT = Quality Assessment Tool