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%