Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality Assessment Criteria

From: The scientific evidence for a potential link between confusion and urinary tract infection in the elderly is still confusing - a systematic literature review

Item Number

Category

Quality Assessment

1

Reporting

The main outcomes of the study to be measured are clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section

2

Reporting

The characteristics of the patients included in the study are clearly described (ie. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria stated, case definition and the source for controls stated in case control studies)

3

Reporting

The number/characteristics of non-responders (cross-sectional) or patients lost to follow-up (longitudinal) have been described

4

Reporting

The study provides estimates of the random variability in the data for the association of UTI or Bacteriuria and confusion

5

Reporting

Actual probability values have been reported for the association between UTI and Delirium eg. p = .035 not p < 0.5, except where p < 0.001

6

Internal Validity

The statistical tests used to assess the association of UTI or Bacteriuria and confusion were appropriate.

7

Internal Validity

The distribution of principle confounders in each comparison group were clearly described

8

External Validity

Patients asked to participate in the study were representative of the entire population of which they were recruited (source population identified and those asked to participate were either the entire population or a randomised sample of the entire population)

9

External Validity

Those participants who were prepared to participate, were representative of the entire population of which they were recruited? > 70% = Yes, < 70% = No

10

Criteria

The criteria used to define caseness for UTI was described

11

Criteria

The criteria used to define caseness for UTI was valid and reliable

12

Criteria

Criteria for Bacteriuria was described

13

Criteria

The criteria used to define caseness for confusion was described

14

Criteria

The criteria used to define caseness for confusion was valid and reliable