Table 3

Distribution of studies by quality-scoring values according to the Chalmers et al. and Jadad et al. methods
Chalmers Jadad score
First Author [Reference No.] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Protocol 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Data analysis Overall 1 2 3 Overall
Yenice [16] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.23 0.2 1 0 0 1
Di Bisceglie [17] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 n.a. 0.35 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.44 0.39 1 0 0 1
Escudero [18] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.61 0.31 0 0 0 0
McHutchison [19] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.58 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.61 0.6 2 0 1 3
Ascione [20] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.54 1 1 0 n.a. 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.67 0.59 2 0 1 3
Lee [21] 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.15 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.54 0.37 0 0 0 0
Rumi [22] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.54 1 1 0 n.a. 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.67 0.59 2 0 1 3

For the Chalmers et al. method: 0 is “Non adequate”, 1 is “Adequate” for the following items: 1 Selection description; 2 Number and reasons for eligible patients not included in the study; 3 Regimen definition; 4 Blinding of Randomization; 5 Blinding of Patients to therapy; 6 Blinding of Physicians/observers to therapy; 7 Blinding of Physicians/observers to ongoing results; 8 Regimen definition; 9 Statistical estimate of sample size; 10 Testing randomization; 11 Testing compliance; 12 Dates of study; 13 Results of prerandomization; 14 Both test statistics and P value given; 15 Post beta estimate; 16 Confidence intervals given; 17 Regression/correlation; 18 Statistical analysis; 19 Number and reasons for patients withdrawn after randomization; 20 Withdrawals handled in several ways; 21 Side effects discussion; 22 Subgroups retrospective analysis. For the Jadad et al. the points are assigned for the following items: 1 Randomization; 2 Double-blinding; 3 Withdrawals and drop-out.

n.a. not applicable.

Coppola et al.

Coppola et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2012 12:357   doi:10.1186/1471-2334-12-357

Open Data