Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality of observation studies with EBRO assessment tool of cohort studies [38]

From: The Contribution of Advanced Glycation End product (AGE) accumulation to the decline in motor function

Item Semba et al. 2010 [45] Sun et al. 2012 [46] Whitson et al. 2014 [47] Shah et al. 2015 [50] Dalal et al. 2009 [43] De La Maza et al. 2008 [49] Momma et al. 2011 [44] Tanaka et al. 2015 [48]
1. Are the comparing groups clearly described? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2. Can risk of bias sufficiently be excluded? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
3. Is the exposure clearly described and is the method for assessing the exposure adequate? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4. Is outcome clearly described and is the method for assessing the outcome adequate? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5. Has exposure outcome been blinded? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. Is there sufficient long follow-up? Not Applicable Yes Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
7. Can selective loss-to-follow-up sufficiently be excluded? Not Applicable Yes Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
8. Have important confounders or prognostic factors been identified and are they taken into account in the design or analysis? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
9. Are the study results valid and applicable? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10. Correction for potential confounders: Odds ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR), Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), Mean Difference (MD), Hazard Ratio (HR) Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Overall quality score Good Good Good Moderate Good Moderate Good Good
  1. To be eligible for further statistical analysis, the study results should rate “valid and applicable” or “doubtful” on question 9. To qualify “valid and applicable” a longitudinal study had to score “Yes” on the 2 follow up questions (6 and 7) and more than 4 times a “yes” on the remaining validity items (1 t/m5 and 8). A “doubtful” qualification was given when 4 times a “yes” was scored on the remaining validity items (1 t/m5 and 8). When a study scored “yes” less than 4 times on the remaining items, further analysis with the checklist was cancelled. When the study had a cross-sectional design the two questions regarding follow up (6 and 7) were disregarded
Back to article page

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1861-6909

Contact us