Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 4 Quality index

From: The effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for common plantar digital compressive neuropathy (Morton’s neuroma): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quality Index Items Bennett 1995 Cashley 2015 Cazzato 2016 Chuter 2013 Climent 2013 Deniz 2015 Dockery 1999 Fanucci 2003 Friedman 2012 Govender 2007 Hassouna 2007 Hughes 2007 Hyer 2005 Kilmartin 1994 Lizano-Diez 2017 Magnan 2005 Mahadevan 2016 Markovic 2008 Masala 2018 Park 2017 Pasquali 2015 Perini 2016 Saygi 2005 Seok 2016 Thomson 2013
Reporting
1. Study hypothesis/aim/objective 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
2. Main outcomes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3. Participant characteristics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4. Interventions of interest 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
5. Distributions of principal confounders in each group 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 2
6. Main findings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7. Estimates of random variability for main outcomes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
8. All the important adverse events that may be a consequence of intervention 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
10. Actual probability values for main outcomes 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
External validity
11. Were subjects who were asked to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
13. Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of subjects received? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
16. If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
17. Do analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up? 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
19. Was compliance with the intervention reliable? 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
20. Were the main outcome measures valid and reliable? 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Internal validity (selection bias)
21. Were the patients in different intervention groups recruited from the same population? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups recruited over the same period of time? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
23. Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
24. Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both patients and staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
26. Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Power
27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total score (/32) 11 17 17 12 14 14 14 15 13 19 13 16 12 20 21 12 22 11 19 19 14 20 10 18 23
Quality Index
(low 0–17, moderate 18–22, high 23–32)
low low low low low low low low low moderate low low low moderate moderate low moderate low moderate moderate low moderate low moderate high
  1. Item 27 was scored by calculating the post-hoc power of the study based on defining a minimal important difference of ten points on a 0–100 scale, extracting the standard deviation observed in the study, and specifying alpha = 0.05. Checklist points associated with post-hoc study power < 60% = 0, 60 to < 80% = 1, 80 to < 90% = 2, 90 to < 95% = 3, 95 to < 99% = 4, > 99% = 5; Quality Index modified from Barton et al. [37]