Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Quality Assessment Criteria

From: The scientific evidence for a potential link between confusion and urinary tract infection in the elderly is still confusing - a systematic literature review

Item Number Category Quality Assessment
1 Reporting The main outcomes of the study to be measured are clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section
2 Reporting The characteristics of the patients included in the study are clearly described (ie. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria stated, case definition and the source for controls stated in case control studies)
3 Reporting The number/characteristics of non-responders (cross-sectional) or patients lost to follow-up (longitudinal) have been described
4 Reporting The study provides estimates of the random variability in the data for the association of UTI or Bacteriuria and confusion
5 Reporting Actual probability values have been reported for the association between UTI and Delirium eg. p = .035 not p < 0.5, except where p < 0.001
6 Internal Validity The statistical tests used to assess the association of UTI or Bacteriuria and confusion were appropriate.
7 Internal Validity The distribution of principle confounders in each comparison group were clearly described
8 External Validity Patients asked to participate in the study were representative of the entire population of which they were recruited (source population identified and those asked to participate were either the entire population or a randomised sample of the entire population)
9 External Validity Those participants who were prepared to participate, were representative of the entire population of which they were recruited? > 70% = Yes, < 70% = No
10 Criteria The criteria used to define caseness for UTI was described
11 Criteria The criteria used to define caseness for UTI was valid and reliable
12 Criteria Criteria for Bacteriuria was described
13 Criteria The criteria used to define caseness for confusion was described
14 Criteria The criteria used to define caseness for confusion was valid and reliable