Table 2 Quality assessment based on Downs and Black [22]
From: How does washing without water perform compared to the traditional bed bath: a systematic review
Items | Gillis et al. (2015) [26] | van Achterberg et al. (2015) [25] | Schoonhoven et al. (2015) [2] | Nøddeskou et al. (2015) [28] | Larson et al. (2004) [27] | Sheppard & Brenner (2000) [29] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reporting | ||||||
1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described?a Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
2. Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the introduction or methods section? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
3. Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
4. Are the interventions of interest clearly described? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
5. Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described?b Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
7. Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
8. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
9. Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
10. Have actual probability values been reported for the main outcomes except where the probability is less than 0.001? Yes = 1, No = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
External validity | ||||||
11. Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate, representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
13. Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Internal validity – bias | ||||||
14. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
15. Is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
16. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate?a Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
17. Was compliance with the intervention reliable? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
18. Were the main outcome measures used accurate? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Internal validity – confounding (selection bias) | ||||||
19. Were patients in different intervention groups or were the cases and controls recruited from the same population? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
20. Were the study subjects in different intervention groups or were the cases and controls recruited from the same population? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
21. Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups?a Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
22. Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
23. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn?a Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
24. Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? Yes = 1, No = 0, Unable to determine = 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Power | ||||||
25. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%?ab Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total quality score | 20/25 | 21/25 | 21/25 | 14/25 | 13/25 | 12/25 |
Important quality items met | 4/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 |
Excluded original items for this study: • Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? • Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? Reason for exclusion: it is practically impossible to blind study subjects and those who measure outcomes for the washing without water intervention. | ||||||