| 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 |