Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of quality assessment and domain scores of reviewed studies

From: Economic analyses of breast cancer control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Authors

Scored domains

Summary scores

  

Study design

Effectiveness estimation

Cost estimation

Analysis

Interpretation of results

Number of items scored

Sum of scores

Total average score

Groot and colleagues, 2006 [28]

Score granted

12

7

6

16

9

29

50

1.72

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

88%

75%

89%

90%

  

86%

Okonkwo and colleagues, 2008 [30]

Score granted

12

6

3

16

10

28

47

1.68

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

100%

38%

100%

100%

  

84%

Munshi, 2009 [41]

Score granted

7

7

0

1

4

21

19

0.90

% of maximum (domain) score

50%

70%

0%

50%

40%

  

45%

Sarvazyan and colleagues, 2008 [32]

Score granted

7

7

0

1

4

21

19

0.90

% of maximum (domain) score

50%

70%

0%

50%

40%

  

45%

Fonseca and colleagues, 2009 [38]

Score granted

14

6

1

13

10

28

44

1.57

% of maximum (domain) score

100%

100%

13%

72%

100%

  

79%

Ginsberg and colleagues, 2012 [27]

Score granted

12

8

8

18

10

29

52

1.79

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

100%

75%

89%

100%

  

90%

Salomon and colleagues, 2012 [31]

Score granted

12

6

5

14

8

29

45

1.55

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

75%

63%

78%

80%

  

78%

Pakseresht and colleagues, 2011 [48]

Score granted

7

1

4

3

5

15

20

1.33

% of maximum (domain) score

88%

50%

50%

75%

63%

  

67%

Szynglarewicz and Matkowski, 2011 [33]

Score granted

5

3

2

1

5

24

15

0.625

% of maximum (domain) score

88%

50%

50%

75%

63%

  

33%

Yazihan and Yilmaz, 2006 [34]

Score granted

12

0

3

2

5

28

22

0.79

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

0%

38%

13%

50%

  

40%

Bastani and Kiadaliri, 2012 [49]

Score granted

13

8

4

7

8

25

40

1.6

% of maximum (domain) score

93%

100%

50%

70%

80%

  

80%

Liubao and colleagues, 2009 [39]

Score granted

13

7

4

16

10

29

50

1.72

% of maximum (domain) score

93%

88%

50%

89%

100%

  

86%

Astim, 2011 [36]

Score granted

9

5

3

8

7

28

32

1.14

% of maximum (domain) score

64%

63%

38%

50%

70%

  

57%

Zelle and colleagues, 2012 [35]

Score granted

14

7

7

14

10

29

52

1.79

% of maximum (domain) score

100%

88%

88%

78%

100%

  

90%

Bai and colleagues, 2012 [42]

Score granted

13

8

5

18

8

29

52

1.79

% of maximum (domain) score

93%

100%

63%

100%

80%

  

90%

Arredondo and colleagues, 1995 [43]

Score granted

10

NA

1

0

7

18

18

1.00

% of maximum (domain) score

71%

NA

13%

0%

70%

  

50%

Boutayeb and colleagues, 2010 [37]

Score granted

12

4

4

1

6

25

27

1.08

% of maximum (domain) score

86%

50%

50%

13%

60%

  

54%

Denewer and colleagues, 2010 [26]

Score granted

10

4

0

2

5

25

21

0.84

% of maximum (domain) score

71%

50%

0%

20%

50%

  

42%

Guggisberg and colleagues, 2011 [46]

Score granted

3

6

2

1

5

25

24

0.96

% of maximum (domain) score

21%

75%

25%

13%

50%

  

35%

Kobayashi, 1988 [44]

Score granted

4

4

1

NA

3

19

12

0.63

% of maximum (domain) score

29%

67%

13%

NA

30%

  

32%

Love and colleagues, 2002 [40]

Score granted

9

6

1

10

8

27

34

1.26

% of maximum (domain) score

64%

100%

13%

63%

80%

  

63%

Mousavi and colleagues, 2008 [29]

Score granted

5

1

0

1

3

22

10

0.45

% of maximum (domain) score

36%

25%

0%

13%

30%

  

23%

Nasrinossadat and colleagues, 2011 [47]

Score granted

75

5

0

0

5

25

17

0.68

% of maximum (domain) score

50%

63%

0%

0%

50%

  

34%

Thomas and colleagues, 1999 [45]

Score granted

7

4

0

0

6

21

17

0.81

% of maximum (domain) score

50%

67%

0%

0%

60%

  

41%

Total average domain score (%)

73%

70%

34%

51%

68%