Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality of included studies (n = 38)

From: A real-world approach to Evidence-Based Medicine in general practice: a competency framework derived from a systematic review and Delphi process

  Quantitative methods Qualitative methods
Author/year Specific objective/ hypothesis Appropriate eligibility/ selection criteria Important outcomes included Instrument design/quality described Response rate Exploration of failure to participate Clear presentation of results Clear objective Selection of participants Methods to generate data Data collection Analysis of data Clear presentation of results
Barghouti F, 2009 [13] + + + + + + +       
Callen J, 2006 [9] + + + + +       
Hannan A, 1998 [69] + + +       
Kahveci R, 2009 [44] + + + + +       
McColl A, 1998 [10] + + + + + + +       
McKenna H, 2004 [16] + + + + + +       
Robinson G, 2000 [70] + + + + +       
Salisbury S, 1998 [71] + + + + +       
Samuel O, 1997 [50] +       
Siriwardena A, 2007 [72] + + + + +       
Taylor J, 2002 [14] + + + +       
Tracy C, 2003 [73] + + + + + +       
Trevena L, 2007 [12] + + + +       
Upton D, 2006 [15] + + + + +       
Adams J, 2000 [29]         + + + +
Armstrong D, 2002 [45]         + + +
Calderón C, 2011 [28]         + ± + + +
Ely J, 2002 [30]         + + + + ± +
Ford S, 2002 [31]         + + + ± +
Ford S, 2003 [42]         + + + ± +
Freeman A, 2001 [32]         + + + ± +
Gabbay J, 2004 [46]         + + + + ± +
Hall L, 1999 [33]         + + + ± +
Hannes K, 2005 [26]         + + + + + +
Lipman T, 2004 [74]         + + + + ± +
Lorenz K, 2005 [47]         + + + ± +
Mayer J, 1999 [35]         + + + + ± +
Mears R, 2000 [8]         + + ± +
Putnam W, 2002 [37]         + + + + ± +
Short D, 2003 [39]         + + + ± +
Skoglund I, 2007 [40]         + ± ± +
Summerskill W, 2002 [41]         + + + + +
Tomlin Z, 1999 [75]         + + + + +
Tracy C, 2003 [27]         + + + + + +
Wood F, 1995 [49]         + + + +
Patterson J, 1999 [36] + + + + + + + + + ± +
Rohrbacher R, 2009 [38] + + + +
Young J, 2001 [11] + + + + + n/a + + + +
  1. Opinion of the reviewer regarding quality: + fulfilled criterion; ± equivocal; − did not fulfill criterion; n/a not applicable as response rate 100%