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]
Back to article page

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us