Table 5 Criteria for quality assessment
From: Behavioural interventions for people living with adult-onset primary dystonia: a systematic review
Risk of bias rating | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Low | Moderate | High | Unclear | |
Diagnostic process | Diagnosis according to established, published criteria | Diagnostic process is described in sufficient detail, but no published criteria were used | Authors mention who performed the diagnosis (e.g., experienced movement specialists) but do not describe the diagnostic process itself | Diagnostic process not described |
Sample size | ≥ 100 per group (sufficient to detect an effect of Cohen‘s d=0.35) | 21-99 per group | < 20 per group (not sufficient to detect a sample size of Cohen‘s d = 0.8) | Sample size not mentioned |
Control group | Healthy controls matched for age and sex | Unmatched healthy controls, matched only for age or only for sex, historical control group, controls with another disorder but no healthy controls | No control group | Not mentioned whether control group was included |
Physiological/ psychological measure | Valid physiological and/or psychological measures of subjective and objective measures (for example clinician ratings of dystonia severity according to validated scale and/or psychological wellbeing and one validated self-report questionnaire) | One adequate physiological and/or psychological measure (for example clinician ratings of dystonia severity according to validated scale and/or psychological wellbeing or one validated self-report questionnaire) | Unvalidated subjective and/or objective measures, questionnaire insensitive or otherwise inappropriate | Measures not sufficiently described |
Description of intervention | An adequate, clear and comprehensive description of the intervention is provided, including the following: what is being tested, theoretical framework underlying the intervention, components of the intervention, how it was delivered and by whom, what research methods were employed, analytical techniques, when and where it was delivered, whether any materials were used and a description of any relevant facilitator/researcher training | Partially full descriptions of the intervention are provided (i.e. between 1-5 components of this criterion lack sufficient detail or are not provided but the remaining 6-11 components are described in detail) | Very few details are given about how the intervention was delivered (e.g. between 1-5 components of this criterion are adequately described but the remaining 6-11 are not described in detail and/or missing) or otherwise inappropriate or irrelevant descriptions are provided | None of the criterion’s components are described |
Medication | Un-medicated sample | Medicated sample, medication reported in detail | Medicated sample, medication insufficiently described | Medication not described |
Statistics | Analysis/statistical approach is adequate for design and sample size, conditions for use of statistical approach tested and described in sufficient detail | Minor shortcomings leading to imprecision, but not invalidation of the results, e.g. conditions for use of statistical approach not tested or not described | Major shortcomings, e.g. no significance testing, inappropriate statistical procedure | Statistical approach not sufficiently described |