Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality review of retained papers

From: The role of emotion in clinical decision making: an integrative literature review

Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
All Studies
 Theoretical model or framework evident 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
 Question/objective sufficiently described 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 Inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly defined 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 The study population is representative of population of interest 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2   1 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
 Accords with current ethical criteria, evidence of ethical approval 2 2   1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2
 Results are reported in sufficient detail 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 Results are consistent with the data 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
 Conclusions flow from the analysis or interpretation of the data 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quantitative Studies
 Used random or probability sample             1          1   
 Sample size adequate & representative including response rate             1          1   
 Employed valid and reliable measures             2          2   
 Confounding factors identified and managed             1          1   
 Appropriate statistics employed             1          0   
 Findings statistically or clinically significant             1          2   
 Estimate of variance is reported for the main results             1          1   
Qualitative studies
 Congruence between philosophical perspective and methodology 2 2 1   2 2 2 0 1 1 1   1 2 2 2 1 2 2    2 0
 Influence of the researcher is addressed 1 1 1   1 2 2 0 1 1 1   2 1 1 2 1 2 2    2 2
 Purposeful selection of participants, process clearly described 2 2 2   2 2 2 1 2 2 2   2 2 2 2 1 2 2    2 2
 Congruence between research methodology & data collection 2 2 2   2 0 2 1 1 1 1   2 2 2 2 1 2 2    2 2
 Congruence between research methodology & analysis methods 2 2 2   2 0 2 1 1 1 1   2 2 2 2 1 2 2    2 2
 Use of audit or verification to establish credibility data analysis 0 0 0   0 2 2 1 1 1 1   2 2 2 2 1 1 2    2 2
 Participants & their voices adequately represented 2 2 2   2 NA 2 1 2 2 2   2 2 2 2 1 2 2    2 2
Mixed Methods Studies
 Mixed methods design is relevant to address the research question     1                 2    
 Influence of the researcher is addressed     2                 2    
 Adequate description of: methods, data handling, combing results     2                 2    
 Adequate integration of qualitative and quantitative results     1                 2    
Total Score 27 27 24 17 27 15 30 14 24 24 22 22 28 29 28 29 17 27 30 23 21 29 28
  1. Scoring: Yes = 2, No = 1, Not reported/unclear = 0; summary score was calculated for each paper by summing the total score obtained across relevant items. Adapted from M Hutchinson, L East, H Stasa and D Jackson [88], L Kmet, R Lee and L Cook [44], A Pearson [43], P Pluye, M-P Gagnon, F Griffiths and J Johnson-Lafleur [42]
  2. Author details:
  3. 1 = Bach et al. 2009 [49]; 2 = Bryon et al. 2012 [50]; 3 = Calvin et al. 2007 [51]; 4 = Chaffey et al. 2010 [52]; 5 = Courtenay et al. 2009 [71]; 6 = Lafrance Robinson et al. 2015 [70]; 7 = Hov et al. 2009; 8 = McBee et al. 2015 [59]; 9 = Kim et al. 2016 [57]; 10 = McLemore et al. 2015 [60]; 11 = Smith et al. 2010 [62]; 12 = Alba 2016 [67]; 13 = Novick et al. 2015 [61]; 14 = Stolper et al. 2009a [63]; 15 = Stolper et al. 2009b [64]; 16 = Islam et al. 2015 [56]; 17 = Harun et al. 2015 [54]; 18 = Tentler et al. 2008 [66]; 19 = Tallentire et al. 2011 [65]; 20 = Alexander et al. 2014 [68]; 21 = Arevalo et al. 2013 [69]; 22 = Gallagher et al. 2015 [53]; 23 = McAndrew et al. 2015 [58]