From: Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review
Study reference/ID | Degan et al. [10] (2017) | Evers et al. [11] (2018) | Jain et al. [12] (2005) | Jain et al. [13] (2004) | Liu et al. [14] (2018) | Ayala and Yencha [15] (2015) | Chen et al. [16] (2014) | Keay et al. [17] (2012) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Relevance: Have the data attributes been described in sufficient detail for decision makers to determine whether there was a good rationale for using the data source, the data source’s overall generalizability, and how the findings can be interpreted in the context of their own organization? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
2. Reliability and Validity: Have the reliability and validity of the data been described, including any data quality checks and data cleaning procedures? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
3. Linkages: Have the necessary linkages among data sources and/or different care sites been carried out appropriately, taking into account differences in coding and reporting across sources? | Yes | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | NAa | NAa | Yes |
4. Eligibility: Have the authors described the type of data used to determine member eligibility? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
5. Data analysis plan: was a data analysis plan, including study hypotheses, developed a priori? Was the study conducted prospectively? | Partialb | Partialb | Partialb | Partialb | Partialb | Noc | No | Partialb |
6. Design selection: has the investigator provided a rationale for the particular research design? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Partiald |
7. Research design limitations: did the author identify and address potential limitations of that design? | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | Partial |
8. Treatment effect: for studies that are trying to make inferences about the effects of an intervention, does the study include a comparison group and have the authors described the process for identifying the comparison group and the characteristics of the comparison group as they relate to the intervention group? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
9. Sample selection: have the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the steps used to derive the final sample from the initial population been described? | Partiale | Partialf | Yes | Yes | Partialg | No | Partialf | Yes |
10. Eligibility: are subjects eligible for the time period over which measurement is occurring? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
11. Censoring: were inclusion/exclusion or eligibility criteria used to address censoring and was the impact on study findings discussed? | Partialh | Partialh | Partialh | Partialh | Partialh | No | Partialh | Yes |
12. Operational definitions: are case (subjects) and end point (outcomes) criteria explicitly defined using diagnosis, drug markers, procedure codes, and/or other criteria? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partiali | Yes | Yes |
13. Definition validity: have the authors provided a rationale and/or supporting literature for the definitions and criteria used and were sensitivity analyses performed for definitions or criteria that are controversial, uncertain, or novel? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
14. Timing of outcome: is there a clear temporal (sequential) relationship between the exposure and outcome? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
15. .Event capture: are the data, as collected, able to identify the intervention and outcomes if they actually occurred? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
16. Disease history: is there a link between the natural history of the disease being studied and the time period for analysis? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
17. Resource valuation: for studies that examine costs, have the authors defined and measured an exhaustive list of resources affected by the intervention given the perspective of the study and have resource prices been adjusted to yield a consistent valuation that reflects the opportunity cost of the resource? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
18. Control variables: if the goal of the study is to examine treatment effects, what methods have been used to control for other variables that may affect the outcome of interest? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Nonej | Nonek | Yes |
19. Statistical model: have the authors explained the rationale for the model/statistical method used? | No | No | No | No | No | Partiall | No | Yes |
20. Influential cases: have the authors examined the sensitivity of the results to influential cases? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
21. Relevant variables: have the authors identified all variables hypothesized to influence the outcome of interest and included all available variables in their model? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Nom | No | No |
22. Testing statistical assumptions: do the authors investigate the validity of the statistical assumptions underlying their analysis? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
23. Multiple tests: if analyses of multiple groups are carried out, are the statistical tests adjusted to reflect this? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
24. Model prediction: if the authors utilize multivariate statistical techniques in their analysis, do they discuss how well the model predicts what it is intended to predict? | No | No | No | No | No | NA | NA | Yes |
25. Theoretical biases: have the authors provided a theory for the findings and have they ruled out other plausible alternative explanations for the findings? | Partialn | Partialn | Partialn | Partialn | Partialn | Partialn | No | Yes |
26. Practical versus statistical significance: have the statistical findings been interpreted in terms of their clinical or economic relevance? | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Partialo | Yes |
27. Generalizability: have the authors discussed the populations and settings to which the results can be generalized? | Partialp | No | No | No | Partialp | No | No | Yes |
Overall level of quality | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low |