Evidence Table 2.3. Assessment of Study Quality in Studies on Prevalence of Depression After Hospitalization for Acute Myocardial Infarction (Question 2)

Study Author, YearRepresentativenessDescription Therapy & ManagementDescription Assessment ProtocolOutcomes & Follow-UpStatistical AnalysesConflict
Trelawny, 1987 15%8%38%0%44%50%
Davis, 1988 35%0%100%0%42%0%
Follick, 1988 25%50%50%0%17%50%
Schleifer, 1991 90%17%100%17%0%50%
Legault, 1992 90%25%100%0%75%75%
Garcia, 1994 55%0%100%0%0%0%
Travella, 1994 70%38%88%17%33%50%
Clarke, 1996 50%0%100%0%0%0%
Lesperance, 1996 60%17%88%8%25%0%
Bennett, 1998 10%0%100%8%0%0%
Lehto, 2000 45%0%88%N/A0%0%
Strik, 2001 80%0%100%N/A50%0%
Lane, 2002 90%0%100%0%50%0%
Shiotani, 2002 80%N/AN/A0%50%50%
Strik, 2002 75%8%100%0%50%0%
Barefoot, 2003 50%0%100%0%25%100%
Aben, 2003 80%0%100%0%33%0%
Lauzon, 2003 65%33%100%8%13%50%
Martin, 2003 65%8%100%8%33%0%
Strik, 2003 65%25%100%0%50%0%
Lesperance, 2004 90%33%100%0%19%50%

Representativeness: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 10 points. This included assessment of how well the study described the study setting and population (2 points), inclusion/exclusion criteria (2 points), non?participating patients (2 points), patient characteristics at enrollment (2 patients), and whether the study used a consecutive series or randomly selected sample (2 patients).

Description of Therapy: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 6 points. This included assessment of how well the study described details of the cardiac therapy given (2 points), whether the study described details of the psychiatric treatment given (2 points), and whether there was adequate description of other treatments given (2 points).

Description of Assessment: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 4 points. This included assessment of the description of methods used for initial diagnosis of depression (2 points), and the description of the interpretation criteria for a diagnosis of depression (2 points).

Outcomes and Follow?up: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 6 points. This included assessment of whether the study reported numbers or reasons for withdrawals or those lost to follow?up (2 points), the percentage of patients withdrawn or lost to follow?up (2 points), and whether the same tools for diagnosing depression were used for baseline and follow?up (2 points).

Statistical Analyses: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 8 points. This included assessment of whether statistical tests were clearly identified (2 points), whether loss to follow?up was handled appropriately (2 points), whether adjustment was made for confounding (2 points), and whether confidence intervals were reported (2 patients).

Conflict of Interest: Percentage score was based on a total maximum score of 2 points. This involved determination of whether the study identified the sources of funding and involvement of the funding agency.

From: Appendix G. Evidence Tables

Cover of Post-Myocardial Infarction Depression
Post-Myocardial Infarction Depression.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 123.
Bush DE, Ziegelstein RC, Patel UV, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.