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

Ammerman A, Lindquist C, Hersey J, et al. The Efficacy of Interventions to Modify Dietary Behavior Related to Cancer Risk. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2001 Jun. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 25.)

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of The Efficacy of Interventions to Modify Dietary Behavior Related to Cancer Risk

The Efficacy of Interventions to Modify Dietary Behavior Related to Cancer Risk.

Show details

Appendix C. Quality Rating Form

Category I. Description of the study: (30 points) Points
(circle 1 for each item)
1.Was the description of the intervention setting, components, delivery, duration, and intensity
(a) Low quality (unclear, many details missing)0
(b) Medium quality (pretty clear, most details provided)5
(c) High quality (very clear, all essential details provided)10
2.Was the description of the study population (i.e., gender, ethnicity, income), recruitment strategy, and inclusion/exclusion criteria
(a) Low quality (unclear, many details missing)0
(b) Medium quality (pretty clear, most details provided)5
(c) High quality (very clear, all essential details provided)10
3.Was the description of the variable measurement and statistical analysis procedure
(a) Low quality (unclear, many details missing)0
(b) Medium quality (pretty clear, most details provided)5
(c) High quality (very clear, all essential details provided)10
Subtotal (Category I):
Category II. Quality of the study design and methodology (70 points) Points
(circle 1 for each item)
4.Was the intervention theoretically based
(a) No (include not reported)0
(b) Yes5
5.Was the research design
(a) Non-equivalent comparison group or not reported0
(b) Random allocation of individuals or units to intervention vs. control group10
6.Was the sample size of the intervention group at baseline
(a) Less than 50 (or not reported)0
(b) 50-1005
(c) More than 10010
7.Was the total duration of follow-up
(a) Less than 3 months0
(b) 3 to 6 months3
(c) 6 months to 1 year6
(d) More than 1 year10
8.Was the loss at follow-up 1 in both the intervention and control groups
(a) More than 30% (or not reported)?0
(b) 20-30%5
(c) Less than 20%10
Quality Rating Form (continued) Points
(circle 1 for each item)
9.Was the dietary assessment tool clearly described and the validity of the tool specified or referenced?
(a) Neither clearly described nor validity addressed (include not reported)0
(b) Tool was clearly described, but validity was not mentioned3
(c) Tool was clearly described and validity was specified/referenced5
10.Were changes in biochemical outcomes explored in the study
(a) No (include not reported)0
(b) Yes5
11.Were analysts blind to the assignment of intervention and control groups?
(a) No (include not reported)0
(b) Yes5
12.Is the generalizability (i.e., applicability to the general population) of the results
(a) Low (study sample not representative of general population, or intervention extremely unrealistic/expensive)0
(b) Medium (study sample fairly representative)5
(c) High (study sample representative of general population)10
Subtotal (Category II):
Total Quality Points:

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...