Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies provided by the NIH

From: Health-related quality of life of refugees: a systematic review of studies using the WHOQOL-Bref instrument in general and clinical refugee populations in the community setting

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? CD Y Y N NR CD Y NR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
4. Were all the subjects 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? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y Y Y Y
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N N Y Y Y
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? Y Y N Y N NA Y NA Y Y Y Y Y NA Y
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Y N Y Y
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Rating overall Good Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good
  1. 1 = Abdo et al. (2019) [36], 2 = Alduraidi et al. (2017) [37], 3 = Crea et al. (2015) [38], 4 = Georgiadou et al. (2020) [39], 5 = Horta et al. (2019) [40], 6 = Redko et al. (2015) [41], 7 = Carlsson, Mortensen et al. (2006) [42], 8 = Huijts et al. (2012) [43], 9 = Opaas & Varvin (2015) [44], 10 = Teodorescu et al. (2012) [45], 11 = Carlsson et al. (2005) [46], 12 = Carlsson et al. (2010) [47], 13 = Carlsson, Olsen et al. (2006) [48], 14 = Kinzie et al. (2012) [49], 15 = Opaas et al. (2016) [50]
  2. Y Yes, N No, NA Not Applicable, CD Cannot Determine, NR Not Reported