Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality criteria and quality of the included studies

From: Health service use and costs associated with aggressiveness or agitation and containment in adult psychiatric care: a systematic review of the evidence

 

Barlow

Carr

Compton

Flood

Jaffe

Legris

Mellesdal

Peiró

Putkonen

Steinert

2000

2008

2006

2008

2009

1999

2003

2004

2013

1999

1. Are the study objectives relevant and well defined?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Are the methods of the study appropriate to realize the study objectives?

Yes

Yes

Retrospective study based on the reviews of clinical charts

The method for estimating costs is based on interviews with key personnel (probability of recall bias)

Retrospective study based on review of clinical charts

Retrospective study based on review of clinical charts

Yes

Retrospective study based on review of clinical charts

Yes

Retrospective study based on review of clinical charts

3. Were the data collected with sufficient quality (review of patient’s chart, patient interview, missing data…)?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes. Some scales had low rates of inter-rater agreement and could not be used in the analysis

Yes

No. High rates of missing data are reported on sociodemographic and clinical variables

Yes

Yes

4. Was the analysis strategy adequate taking into account the study objectives and methods (statistical methods of analysis well-designed and executed, data adjusted for confounding variables,…)?

The analysis strategy is adequate but the analyses are not adjusted for confounding variables

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The analysis strategy is adequate but the analysis did not take into account missing data and could be biased.

Yes

Yes

5. Is the presentation of results complete and of good quality (all objectives are addressed, raw and adjusted results are presented, information on variability is presented (i.e., SD, SE or confidence intervals), …)?

All the objectives are addressed but only raw results are presented. Lacks information on variability

Yes

Yes

Yes

Absence of possible confounding issues in the analyses (e.g., relevant physical-mental comorbidities)

Yes

Yes

28% of data is missing for important variables (age, length of illness)

Yes

Yes

6. Are the results discussed in the context of previously published studies?

Yes

Yes

Yes

The results are compared only to those previously obtained in USA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

7. Are the limitations of the study discussed and the results discussed taking into account these limitations?

The limitations of the study are not adequately discussed

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The limitations of the study are not discussed or taken into account when drawing conclusions

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

8. Are the conclusions of the study supported by the results?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

QUALITY

Low-Moderate

High

High

Moderate-High

Low-Moderate

Moderate

High

Low-moderate

High

High