Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment

From: Effectiveness of interventions for people bereaved through suicide: a systematic review of controlled studies of grief, psychosocial and suicide-related outcomes

Quality Criteria Battle (1984)
USA [33]
Constantino & Bricker (1996)
USA [34]
Constantino et al. (2001)
USA [35]
De Groot et al. (2007; 2010)
The Netherlands [41, 42]
Farberow (1992) USA [36] Hazell & Lewin (1993)
Australia [43]
Kovac & Range (2000)
USA [37]
Pfeffer et al. (2002)
USA [38]
Sandor et al. (1994)
USA [39]
Wittouck et al. (2014)
Belgium [44]
Zisook et al. (2018)
USA [40]
A. Selection bias
 Representativeness Not likely Not likely Not likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Can’t tell Not likely Not likely
 Percentage agreed Can’t tell 80–100% Can’t tell < 60% Can’t tell 60–79% 60–79% 60–79% Can’t tell 80–100% Can’t tell
 Rating Weak Weak Weak Weak Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Weak Weak
B. Study design
 Study design type Other: 3 groups comparison RCT RCT RCT Cohort analytic Case-control RCT RCT Cohort analytic RCT RCT
 Described as randomized? No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
 Method of randomization described? N.a. No Yes Yes N.a. N.a. No Yes N.a. Yes Yes
 Method appropriate? N.a. No Yes Yes N.a. N.a. No Yes N.a. Yes Yes
 Rating Weak Strong Strong Strong Moderate Moderate Strong Strong Moderate Strong Strong
C. Confounders
 Pre-intervention differences? Can’t tell No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
 Percentage confounders controlled for Can’t tell N.a. N.a. 80–100% (most) Can’t tell 80–100% 60–79% (some) 80–100% (most) 80–100% 80–100% < 60% (few or none)
 Rating Weak Strong Strong Strong Weak Strong Moderate Strong Strong Strong Weak
D. Blinding
 Outcome assessors were blinded? Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell No Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell No Yes
 Participants were blinded? Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Yes Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Yes
 Rating Weak Weak Weak Weak Weak Weak Moderate Moderate Weak Weak Strong
E. Data collection methods
 Valid measures? Can’t tell Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Reliable measures? Can’t tell Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell Can’t tell Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Rating Weak Strong Strong Strong Weak Moderate Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong
F. Withdrawals and drop-outs
 Numbers and reasons reported per group? Yes Can’t tell No Yes Can’t tell No No No Yes Yes No
 Percentage completing study? N.a. 80–100% 60–79% 80–100% Can’t tell 80–100% 60–79% < 60% 80–100% 80–100% < 60%
 Rating N.a. Strong Moderate Strong Weak Weak Weak Weak Strong Strong Weak
 Total A-F: WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK MODERATE MODERATE WEAK WEAK WEAK
 Number of ‘strong’ ratings 0/6 4/6 3/6 4/6 0/6 1/6 2/6 3/6 3/6 4/6 3/6
G. Intervention integrity
 Percentage participants received intervention? Can’t tell 80–100% 60–79% 80–100% 80–100% 80–100% 60–79% 80–100% Can’t tell 80–100% 60–79%
 Intervention consistency measured? Can’t tell Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Can’t tell Can’t tell Yes
 Confounding unintended intervention? Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell
H. Analyses   
 Unit of allocation Individual Individual Individual Individual (family) Individual Individual Individual Individual (family) Individual Individual Individual
 Unit of analysis Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
 Appropriate statistical methods? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Analysis by intention-to-treat status No Can’t tell No Yes No Can’t tell Can’t tell No Can’t tell No Can’t tell