Table 4 Methodological quality appraisal using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist
Item | Araszkiewicz et al. (2015) | Baker et al. (2007) | Hamdy et al. (2001) | Parkhouse et al. (1988) | Shapiro et al. (1998) | Stevens et al. (1992) | Veves et al. (1998) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Did the study address a clearly focused issue? | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π |
2. Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? | Π | Π | Π | ? | ? | ? | Π |
3. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias? | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π |
4. Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias? | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π |
5. Have the authors addressed confounding factors in the study design and/or analysis? | Π | Π | Π | ? | Π | ? | ? |
6. Are the results of the study clearly presented? | Π | Π | Π | ? | Π | ? | Π |
7. Are the results precise? | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π |
8. Do the results reflect a validated model? | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π |