Table 2

GRADE assessment of included studies
ID Study Limitations of design (Risk of bias) Inconsistency or heterogenity Indirectness (PICO and Applicablity) Imprecision of result Publication bias Quality rating
A [30] (Aghlmand et al., 2008) Moderate
B [24] (Kalisch et al., 2007) X Low
C [27] (Curtis et al., 2008) Moderate
D [26] (Kipp et al., 2001) X X X Very Low
E [25] (Oosthuizen et al., 2002) X Low
F [29] (Brown et al., 2007) High
G [28] (Schmied et al., 2009) X Low
H [23] (Moffitt et al., 2009) X Low
I [22] (Wessels et al., 2010) X Low
J [37] (Varelas et al., 2004) Low
K [35] (Nolan et al., 2005) X Low
L [34] (Scott et al., 2000) X Moderate
M [39] (Van Zyl et al., 2004) X Low
N [36] (Feldman et al., 2006) X Very Low
O [33] (Mehta et al., 2002) Moderate
P [31] (Halm et al., 2004) Moderate
Q [32] (Meehan et al., 2001) Moderate
R [38] (Choma et al., 2009) Moderate
S [41] (Koplan et al., 2008) Moderate
T [40] (Smith et al., 2004) Moderate

Conry et al.

Conry et al. BMC Health Services Research 2012 12:275   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-275

Open Data