Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of the quality assessment

From: Impact of physical activity on activity of daily living in moderate to severe dementia: a critical review

Items

Description

Score

Reporting

Kwak et al. [26]

Steinberg et al. [23]

Rolland et al. [25]

Stevens and Killeen [24]

Francese et al. [27]

Hypothesis

Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

Main outcomes

Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the “Introduction” or “Methods” section?

0

1

1

1

1

Included patients characteristics

Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described?

0

1

1

0

0

Interventions of interest

Are the interventions of interest clearly described?

1

1

1

0

0

Distribution

Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described?

1

2

2

1

1

Main findings

Are the main findings of the study clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

Random variability

Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes?

1

1

1

0

1

Adverse events

Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported?

0

1

1

0

0

Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up

Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described?

0

0

1

0

1

Probability values

Have actual probability values been reported (e.g. 0.035 rather than <0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001?

0

1

1

1

1

External validity

Representativity of the participants

Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?

0

0

1

1

1

Representativity of the prepared subjects

Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?

0

0

0

0

0

Representativity of the staff, places and facilities

Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive?

0

0

1

0

0

Internal validity bias

Blind study subjects

Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received?

0

0

0

0

0

Blind staff

Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention?

0

1

1

0

0

“Data dredging”

If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging,” was this made clear?

1

1

1

0

1

Adjustment of the analyses

In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or in case–control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls?

1

1

1

1

1

Statistical tests

Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate?

1

1

1

1

0

Compliance

Was compliance which the intervention/s reliable?

0

1

1

0

0

Validity and reliability of the main outcomes

Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)?

0

1

0

0

1

Internal validity confounding

Subjects recruited from the same population

Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited from the same population?

0

1

1

1

1

Subjects recruited over the same period of time

Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time?

0

0

1

1

1

Randomization

Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups?

1

1

1

1

1

Randomized intervention assignment

Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until was complete and irrevocable?

0

0

1

0

0

Adequate adjustment for confounding

Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn?

1

1

1

0

0

Losses of patients to follow-up

Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account?

0

0

1

0

0

Power

Clinically important effect

Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%?

0

0

1

1

0

Total score

 

10

19

25

12

14