Quality of included studies (NIH Quality Assessment Tool)
| Criteria | Asenlof (2009) | Carvalho, etal25 | Dierckx, etal24 | Fraenkel, et al25 | Zolfaghari, et al (2014) | Fried, et al26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Yes | No; a source of recruiting participants was discussed but there were no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria provided. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | Yes | Yes | No; initial recruitment of physical therapists had a ‘very low participation rate’ according to the study. Of the 125 physiotherapists who were invited to participate, 10% agreed. There was a 90.5% participation rate among patients recruited. | Participation rate not mentioned. | Participation rate was not included in the study. | Yes |
| Were all the participants selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes; study recruited based on another study’s population whose inclusion/exclusion criteria were explicit. |
| Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | Yes; describes a pragmatic approach. Sample size was dependent on a recruitment within the predetermined time limit set by the study organisers. | No | No | Yes; sample size was based on the number needed to stabilise conjoint results. | No justification for the sample size was included in the study. | No justification for the sample size was included in the study. |
| For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | Yes | NA (Cross-Sectional Study) | Yes | NA | NA | NA |
| For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (eg, categories of exposure, or exposure measured as a continuous variable)? | NA | NA (Cross-Sectional Study) | NA (Tools administered once) | NA | NA | NA |
| Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants? | No; all participants were not included in each analysis and measurements. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | Yes | No | No | No | No | Tool was applied twice to check test–retest validity |
| Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable and implemented consistently across all study participants? | No; while the outcome measures were clearly defined, they did not get implemented consistently across all study participants as not all participants completed each type of questionnaire. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? | Yes | NA | No mention of blinding | NA | No mention of blinding | No mention of blinding |
| Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | No; only 32 patients in the sample completed the survey at all measurement points. | No; while 82% completed the tool initially, only 23% completed it again post-caesarean section | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | Yes | Yes; the study addresses parity, social education and previous surgeries in the results section and identifies no statistically significant effects on current preferences. | Yes; the study identified no significant difference in agreement of tools based on age, sex, level of education and several other demographic/personal characteristics of clients | Yes; the study assessed for differences in outcome based on patient demographics or characteristics. | Study identified differences in patient characteristics, but these differences were not analysed when interpreting results. | Yes |
NA, not applicable.