樱花视频

Skip to main content

Table 3 Critical appraisal of eligible cross-sectional studies 1

From: Risk factors for infection in older adults with home care: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis

Citation

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Barros et al., 2018 [32]

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Chikanya et al., 2003

U

Y

U

N

N

N

U

Y

Harrison et al., 2022 [34]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Lin et al., 2020 [35]

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

U

Y

Y

Marrie et al., 2005 [40]

Y

Y

U

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Morioka et al., 2021 [36]

U

U

Y

U

Y

Y

U

Y

P盲rn et al., 2016 [37]

Y

U

Y

Y

U

U

Y

Y

R枚nneikk枚 et al., 2018 [38]

Y

U

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Shang et al., 2020a [3]

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Shang et al., 2020b [5]

Y

Y

Y

Y

U

U

Y

Y

Shang et al., 2022 [39]

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

White et al., 1992 [30]

U

U

U

Y

N

N

Y

Y

  1. Y yes, N no, U unclear
  2. JBI Critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies
  3. Q1: Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
  4. Q2: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
  5. Q3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
  6. Q4: Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
  7. Q5: Were confounding factors identified?
  8. Q6: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
  9. Q7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
  10. Q8: Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Back to article page

樱花视频

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us