Table 6: Methodological quality of quantitative studies reporting correlations and associations
From: Young carers: growing up with chronic illness in the family - a systematic review 2007-2017
1. Population | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9 |
1.1 Is the source population or source area well described? | + | ++ | – | – | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
1.2 Is the eligible population or area representative of the source population or area? | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | + | + | ++ |
1.3 Do the selected participants or areas represent the eligible population or area? | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | ++ |
2. Method of selection of exposure (or comparison) group | |||||||||
2.1 Selection of exposure (and comparison) group. How was selection bias minimised? | NR | – | NR | – | – | – | – | – | ++ |
2.2 Was the selection of explanatory variables based on a sound theoretical basis? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
2.3 Was the contamination acceptably low? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | ++ |
2.4 How well were likely confounding factors identified and controlled? | NR | – | NR | – | – | – | – | – | + |
2.5 Is the setting applicable to the UK? (for this review: Germany) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
3. Outcomes | |||||||||
3.1 Were the outcome measures and procedures reliable? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
3.2 Were the outcome measurements complete? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
3.3 Were all the important outcomes assessed? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + |
3.4 Was there a similar follow-up time in exposure and comparison groups? | NA | NA | NA | + | NA | NA | NA | NA | + |
3.5 Was follow-up time meaningful? | NA | NA | NA | ++ | NA | NA | NA | NA | + |
4. Analysis | |||||||||
4.1 Was the study sufficiently powered to detect an intervention effect (if one exists)? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | ++ |
4.2 Were multiple explanatory variables considered in the analyses? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
4.3 Were the analytical methods appropriate? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
4.6 Was the precision of association given or calculable? Is association meaningful? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
5. Summary | |||||||||
5.1 Are the study results internally valid (i.e. unbiased)? | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
5.2 Are the findings generalisable to the source population (i.e. externally valid)? | + | ++ | + | ++ | + | + | + | + | ++ |