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