Table_1.xls (9.5 kB)

Quality assessment – Interventions (Health and Social).

Download (0 kB)
posted on 26.04.2013, 00:39 by Colin Sumpter, Belen Torondel

Allocation/sampling process described and truly random; 2Comparison group characteristics provided and balanced; 3Objective measures of outcome used; 4Number of subjects lost to follow up (LTFU) provided and analysed; 5Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis used; 6Identical follow-up in each arm; 7Power calculation provided; 8Measure of effect provided (e.g. OR/RR); 9Confidence Intervals provided; 10P-Value provided.


Cross-over intervention; bTwo arms but employed post-test only; cCluster randomised, 10 classes (5 intervention, 5 control) but no randomisation process described; dIntervention group significantly older; eSelf-reported approaches to menstrual management; fAlthough not stated, numbers in analysis shows no loss to follow up; gDifference in test score means, t-test and SD provided; hSchools chosen to take part, controls matched on school type, grade, age, field of study; iOther than matching no data on ‘balance’ presented; jDifference in proportions (Chi2/t-test) and p-value provided; kBefore and after study; lSame students interviewed pre- and post-intervention; mIdentical panel used: interviewed pre- and post-intervention; nLTFU figure given, analysis of characteristics provided; oRegressions model shows effect size, SE provided; pTwo independent samples used – no loss to follow up possible; qBoth self-reported and official records used to measure attendance; radherence c. 60%, ‘treatment on treated’ analysis presented separately.