Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality of included systematic reviews and studies

From: The effectiveness of case management for cancer patients: an umbrella review

Author, year

1a

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Quality ratingc (Total score)

Joo, 2019 [9, 22]

Yb

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Strong (0.91)

Wulff, 2008 [23]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Moderate (0.72)

Yin 2020 [24]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Strong (1.00)

Li, 2014 [19]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Strong (0.82)

Aubin, 2012 [10]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Strong (1.00)

Chan, 2020 [11]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Strong (0.91)

Wu, 2021 [25]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

Y

Strong (0.95)

McQueen, 2017 [26]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

N

N

Y

Strong (0.77)

  1. 1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?
  2. 2. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?
  3. 3. Was the search strategy appropriate?
  4. 4. Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate?
  5. 5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?
  6. 6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?
  7. 7. Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction?
  8. 8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?
  9. 9. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
  10. 10. Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data?
  11. 11. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?
  12. aWe applied the following 11 questions of JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist [1] for quality appraisal of the included reviews
  13. bY=Yes; N=No; U = Unclear
  14. cQuality of reviews was classified as low (0–0.25), low-moderate (0.26–0.50), moderate (0.51–0.75), or high (0.76–1.0)
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us