Skip to main content

Table 2 Example table showing results of a quality appraisal for two quality of life (QoL) studies using the McMaster Critical Review Form for quantitative studies [45]

From: Describing the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review protocol for the development of shared decision making resources

  Aim + background Study design Sample Outcomes Intervention Results Conclusion
Study A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Boutoille et al. [46]    Case-control 34    Y Y     Y     
25-9a
  Reviewer comments: Unclear description of aim and background. New results were presented in the discussion. QoL in the partial foot and transtibial amputee cohorts were compared to non-amputee cohort with foot ulceration but not to each other. Detailed sample demographic information was not provided. Co-intervention: the foot ulcer group was receiving active treatment while the amputee group had completed rehabilitation. Power bias present in assessment of capacity for inclusion, as the participants’ doctor decided if they were able to complete the survey. High risk of type-1 error due to multiple t tests employed. Large variability in the results, making it difficult to detect meaningful differences.
Peters et al. [43] Y Y Case-control 124 Y   Y Y     Y   Y   
35-89a
  Reviewer comments: Control bias: the case and control groups were significantly different in terms of: gender, duration of diabetes, and degree of neuropathy. QoL assessed with Sickness Impact Profile, focusing on functional status. Data pooled for persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputations (high level) and all levels of partial foot amputation (mid-level). A large variability in the results makes it difficult to detect meaningful differences. High chance of a Type 1 error given between group comparisons of multiple dependent variables.
  1. Quality assessment items from McMaster University Critical Review Form—quantitative studies are listed as per the following key: A: Was the study purpose stated clearly?; B: Was relevant background literature reviewed?; C: Study design; D: Sample size (n) and the number of cases versus controls as applicable; E: Was the sample described in detail?; F: Was sample size justified?; G: Were the outcome measures reliable?; H: Were the outcome measures valid?; I: Was intervention described in detail?; J: Was contamination avoided?; K: Was co-intervention avoided?; L: Were results reported in terms of statistical significance?; M: Were the analysis method(s) appropriate?; N: Was clinical importance reported?; O: Were dropouts reported?; P: Were conclusions appropriate given study methods and results? Note: For clarity, only questions with affirmative responses have been shown
  2. aNumber of cases versus controls