Table 4 Quality assessment of quantitative results (n = 16) using an adapted Downs and Black checklist
From: Determinants of intra-household food allocation between adults in South Asia – a systematic review
Study quality | No | Unable to determine | Yes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
n | n | n | (%) | |
Is the hypothesis or aim of the study clearly described? | 0 | NA | 16 | (100) |
Are the outcomes described in the Introduction or Methods? | 1 | NA | 15 | (94) |
Are the characteristics of the respondents described? | 6 | NA | 10 | (63) |
Are the determinants of interest described? | 2 | NA | 14 | (88) |
Are the distributions of principal confounders described? | 6 | NA | 10 | (63) |
Are the main findings of the study clearly described? | 1 | NA | 15 | (94) |
Does the study provide estimates of random variability? | 9 | NA | 7 | (44) |
Have probability values (not cutoffs) been reported? | 14 | NA | 2 | (13) |
Validity, bias and confounding | ||||
Was the sample representative of the population? | 1 | 7 | 8 | (50) |
Were the respondents representative of the population? | 0 | 14 | 2 | (13) |
Were the statistical tests appropriate? | 4 | 0 | 12 | (75) |
Were the main outcome measures used valid and reliable? | 0 | 3 | 13 | (81) |
Was there adequate adjustment for confounding? | 8 | 2 | 6 | (38) |
Were losses of respondents taken into account? | 3 | 11 | 2 | (13) |