From: Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
Definition (Item #) | Study 1 {#X} | Study 2 {#X} | Study 3 {#X} | Study 4 {#X} | Study 5 {#X} | Study 6 {#X} | Study 7 {#X} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internal validity | |||||||
 The study addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question (Item 1) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Selection of subjects | |||||||
 The cases and controls are taken from comparable populations (Item 2) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 The same exclusion criteria are used for both cases and controls (Item 3) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 What percentage of each group (cases and controls) participated in the study? (Item 4) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 Comparison is made between participants and non-participants to establish their similarities or differences (Item 5) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 Cases are clearly defined and differentiated from controls (Item 6) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 It is clearly established that controls are non-cases (Item 7) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Assessment | |||||||
 Measures will have been taken to prevent knowledge of primary exposure influencing case ascertainment (Item 8) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 Exposure status is measured in a standard, valid and reliable way (Item 9) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Confounding | |||||||
 The main potential confounders are identified and taken into account in the design and analysis (Item 10) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Statistical analysis | |||||||
 Confidence intervals are provided (Item 11) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Overall assessment of the study | |||||||
 Taking into account clinical considerations, your evaluation of the methodology used, and the statistical power of the study, do you think there is clear evidence of an association between exposure and outcome? (Item 12) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 Are the results of this study directly applicable to the patient group targeted by this guideline? (Item 13) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Summary quality (risk of bias) rating | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |