Thursday, May 17, 2012
You are not currently logged in
Kitchen inspection photo, courtesy of Health Canada 2011
View Article

Quality Assessment Tool

Psychological interventions for overweight or obesity

First Author:

 Shaw, K., O'Rourke, P., Del Mar, C., Kenardy, J.

Year:

 2005

Journal:

 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volume:

 2005

Issue:

 2

Page Numbers:

 Art. No.: CD003818-

Reviewer:

 Kathryn Bruinsma

Review Status:

 Completed

Instructions for completion: Please refer to the attached dictionary for definition of terms and instructions for completing each section.
For each criteria, score by checking the appropriate box.

Criterion
Yes
No
1. Did the authors have a clearly focused question [population, intervention (strategy), and outcome(s)]?
 
2. Were appropriate inclusion criteria used to select primary studies?
 
3. Did the authors describe a search strategy that was comprehensive?
(Check all strategies used)
Health Databases Hand Searching
Psychological Databases Key Informants
Social Science Databases Reference Lists
Educational Databases Unpublished
Other:
 
4. Did search strategy cover an adequate number of years?
 
 
For question 5, 6 and 8, please choose the column relating to the appropriate methodology.
Only fill out the column that applies.
       
5. Quantitative reviews:
Did the authors describe the level of evidence in the primary studies included in the review?
LevelI (RCTs only)
LevelII (non-randomized, cohort, case-control studies)
LevelIII (uncontrolled studies)
5. Qualitative reviews:
Do the authors provide a clear description of the range of methods in each of the primary studies included in the review?
 
6. Quantitative reviews:
Did the review assess the methodological quality of the primary studies including:
(minimum requirement: 4/7 of the following)
research design
study sample
participation rates
source of bias(confounders, respondent bias)
data collection (measurement of independent/dependent variables)
follow-up/attrition rates
data analysis
6. Qualitative reviews:
Did the review assess the methodological quality of the primary studie including:
(minimum requirement: 4/7 of the following)
suitablity of methodology/paradigm to the research question
sampling (selection of participants/settings/documentation)
clear description of context, data collection, and data analysis
rigor:
i) audit trail
ii) some coding by 2 or more coders, if appropriate
iii) deviant case analysis (negative cases)
iv) respondant validation (member checking)
triangulation
reflexivity (researcher and research process)
relevance (credibility, consistency, applicability, transferability)
 
7. Are the results of the review transparent?
8. Quantitative reviews:
Was it appropriate to combine the findings of results across studies?
8. Qualitative reviews:
Is there a description of how reviewers determined results were similar enough across studies to compare or combine them?
 
9. Were appropriate methods used for combining or comparing results across studies?
 
10. Does the data support the author's interpretation?
TOTAL SCORE:8


View Article Top of Page
health-
evidence
.ca
• Promoting evidence-informed decision making • Copyright © 2003, health-evidence.ca • Terms of Use Agreement