Skip to main content

Table 2 The quality assessment criteria for included studies

From: A systematic review investigating fatigue, psychological and cognitive impairment following TIA and minor stroke: protocol paper

   Judgment (yes/no/unclear)
   Support for judgment
Sampling Was the study design appropriate to answer the research question?  
  Was the sampling method appropriate?  
  Did the study report how many people were approached and how many agreed to take part?  
  Do those that participate have similar characteristics to those that refused (for example, age, gender, comorbidities, how they were approached)?  
  Is the sample size adequate?  
  Did the study describe how the sample size was determined?  
  Was a suitable definition of TIA/minor stroke used?  
  If applicable, was the control group comparable to cases (consider suitability, recruitment and baseline characteristics)?  
  Did the study demonstrate if the outcomes were present before the TIA/minor stroke (for example, history of depression)?  
Measurement Was a suitable measurement for outcome used?  
  Has the outcome measure been validated for the population?  
  Was the outcome measure cut-off score predefined?  
  Was the outcome measure administration suitable (for example, self reported, investigator interview)?  
  Were potential confounding variables measured?  
Attrition Were numbers of dropouts/withdrawals documented at each time point?  
  Were reasons given for dropouts/withdrawals?  
Analysis Were all outcomes reported?  
  Were confounding variables adjusted for?