Skip to main content

Table 3 NHLBI quality assessment tool

From: Clinical features contributing to the sit-to-stand transfer in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review

Questions

Mak et al. (2002)

Inkster et al. (2002)

Paasuke et al. (2004)

Ramsey et al. (2003)

Inkster et al. (2004)

Buckley et al. (2008)

Souza (2018)

Mak et al. (2004)

Angela fernandes et al. (2015)

Nikfekr. (2002)

Souza et al. (2011)

Mak et al. (2002)

Bishop (2005)

Research question

 1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Study population

 2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 3

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Groups recruited from the same population and eligibility criteria

 4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Nr

Yes

Nr

No

Cd

Nr

Nr

Cd

Sample size justification

 5

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nr

Nr

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nr

Nr

Yes

Yes

Nr

Exposure assessed prior to outcome measurement

 6

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Sufficient time frame to see an effect

 7

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Different levels of exposure of interest

 8

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Exposure measures and assessment

 9

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Repeated exposure assessment

 10

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Outcome measures

 11

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Blinding of outcome assessors

 12

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Follow up rate

 13

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Statistical analysis

 14

Cd

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cd

Cd

Yes

Yes

Cd

Cd

Yes

 

50%

50%

57%

50%

43%

50%

50%

43%

43%

43%

43%

43%

43%

 

Fair

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Poor

Poor

Fair

  1. 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?