Table 3 Fowkes and Fulton criteria classification determined by the authors
Guideline | Checklist | Classification | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | + | ++ | ||
Study sample representative? | Source of sample | Included many long-term institutions for elderly | Included a single long-term institution for elderly, but it was the unique on local | Included a single long-term institution for elderly, even with more institutions to be included |
Sampling method | Random sample | Convenience sample, but it was a cense | Convenience sample and not a cense | |
Sample size | High power of study (equal or greater than 80%) | Median power of study (between 75 and 80%) | Low power of study (lower than 75%) | |
Entry criteria/ exclusions | inclusion and exclusion criteria well defined, namely, presented both criteria | Inclusion and exclusion criteria not well defined, namely, presented only one of them | No criteria presented | |
Non-respondents | Response rate of 100% | Response rate between 80 and 99% | Response rate lower than 80% | |
Control group acceptable? | Definition of controls | Well-defined control (adequate to the aim of the study) | Control group not well defined (inadequate to the aim of the study) | Control group not defined |
Source of controls | Control group from the same city of IE and/or with comparable characteristics | Control group came from different locations (non-comparable characteristics) and/or physical activities programs, elderly group, etc. | Did not mention where the control group came from | |
Matching/ randomisation | Case-control relation: 1:2; 1:3, etc. | Case-control relation: 1:1 | Case-control relation: 2:1; 3:1, etc. | |
Comparable characteristics | Paired by age, gender, socioeconomical characteristics and comorbidity | Paired by only one of the criteria: age, gender, socioeconomical characteristics or comorbidity | Not paired | |
Quality of measurements and outcomes? | Validity | Used a questionnaire validated and adapted to the target language and population and/or with a good Cronbach’s alpha | Used a questionnaire validated but not adapted to the target language and population and/or with a good Cronbach’s alpha | Did not use a questionnaire validated and adapted to the target language and population and/or with a good Cronbach’s alpha |
Reproducibility | Used a validated questionnaire and performed kappa test, repeatability of measures and/or checking of measures | Used a validated questionnaire, but did not performed kappa test, repeatability of measurements and/or checking of measurements; or did not use a validated questionnaire, but did kappa test, repeatability of measurements and/ or checking of measurement | Did not used a validated questionnaire and did not perform kappa test, test and retest, etc | |
Blindness | NA | NA | NA | |
Quality control | Single interviewer questionnaire research | Interview questionnaire, applied by many researchers | Self-applied questionnaire | |
Completeness? | Compliance | NA | NA | NA |
Drop outs | NA | NA | NA | |
Deaths | NA | NA | NA | |
Missing data | No loss | Up to 20% of loss | More than 20% of loss | |
Distorting influences? | Extraneous treatments | NA | NA | NA |
Contamination | NA | NA | NA | |
Changes over time | NA | NA | NA | |
Confounding factors | No confounding factors | Some confounding factor (cognitive capacity or comorbidity) | Many confounding factors (cognitive capacity, comorbidity, etc) | |
Distortion reduced by analysis | All confounding factors were reduced in data analysis | Some confounding factors were reduced in data analysis | Confounding factors were not reduced in data analysis | |