Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment scores from the Quality index tool [21]

From: The effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for the treatment of lower limb ulceration: a systematic review

Quality index items

Moretti [26]

Saggini [27]

Wang [28]

Wang [29]

Schaden [17]

Reporting

     

1. Study hypotheses/aim/objective

1

0

1

1

1

2. Main outcomes

1

1

1

1

1

3. Participant characteristics

1

1

1

1

1

4. Interventions of interest

1

0

1

1

1

5. Distribution of principal confounders

1

1

0

1

1

6. Main findings

1

1

1

1

1

7. Estimates of random variability

1

0

1

0

1

8. Adverse events described

0

1

0

1

1

9. Participants lost to follow up described

1

0

1

1

1

10. Actual probability values reported

0

0

0

1

1

External validity

     

11. Were subjects asked to participate representative of population from which they were recruited?

0

0

0

0

0

12. Were subjects prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?

0

0

0

0

0

13. Were the staff, places and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment patients received?

1

1

0

1

1

Internal validity (bias)

     

14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received?

0

0

0

0

0

15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention?

0

0

0

0

0

16. If any of the results of the study were based on ‘data dredging’ was this made clear?

1

1

1

0

1

17. Does analysis adjust for lengths of follow up or is the time period between intervention and outcome the same?

0

0

0

0

0

18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate?

0

1

0

1

1

19. Was compliance with the intervention reliable?

1

1

1

1

1

20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)?

1

0

1

1

0

Internal validity (selection bias)

     

21. Were cases and controls recruited from the same population?

0

0

1

1

0

22. Were cases and controls recruited over the same period of time?

1

1

1

0

1

23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups?

1

0

1

1

0

24. Was randomised intervention assignment concealed from participants/researchers until recruitment complete?

0

0

0

0

0

25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analysis from which the main findings were drawn?

0

*

0

0

1

26. Were losses to follow up of patients taken into account?

1

0

1

1

1

Power

     

27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect?

*

*

*

*

*

Total score%

55

38

52

59

63

  1. Notes:
  2. All questions were scored on the following scale: yes = 1, unable to determine = 0, no = 0.
  3. Question 5 is an exception with scores allocated: yes = 2, partially = 1, no = 0.
  4. *Item removed.