A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and ...

TABLE 1 The quality of included studies
Study
Was the method used to assign
participants to the treatment
groups really random?
Was the sequence of
randomisation concealed?
Was blinding carried out?
Who was blinded?
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006. All rights reserved.
Health Technology Assessment 2006; Vol. 10: No. 23
Ahmann, 1993 35 Poor Poor Yes P/#2 Unclear No No Yes Yes
Arnold, 1976 36 Good Good Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Yes
Arnold, 1978 37 Good Good Yes CL/#2 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Yes
Arnold, 1989 38 Good Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes
Barkley, 1990 39 Poor Poor Yes C/P/T/I Unclear Unclear Yes Yes? No
Barkley, 2000 40 Poor Poor Yes C/P/T/I Unclear No Yes No No
Brown, 1985 41 Poor Poor NR NA Unclear NA NA Yes No
Brown, 1986 42 Poor Poor Yes P/T/I Unclear Unclear Partially Yes No
Brown, 1988 43 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes No
Buitelaar, 1996 44 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Yes NA Unclear No
Conners, 1972 45 Poor Poor NR NA Unclear Unclear No Yes No
Conners, 1980 46 Poor Poor Yes C/P/I Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes No
Conrad, 1971 47 Poor Poor Yes P/T/CL/I Unclear Unclear No Yes No
Dopfner, 2003 48 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear No Yes Yes No
DuPaul, 1993 49 Poor Poor Yes T/I Unclear No No Poor No
Efron, 1997 50 Poor Poor Yes C/P/T/I Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear No
Elia, 1991 51 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear No No
Fine, 1993 52 Poor Poor Yes C/P/T/I Unclear NA NA No Yes
Firestone, 1986 53 Poor Poor Yes P/T/CL Unclear Unclear Partially Yes? No
Fischer, 1991 54 Poor Poor Yes C/P/T/I Unclear Unclear Yes Unclear No
Fitzpatrick, 1992 55 Good Poor Yes #1 Unclear Unclear Unclear Partially No
Gillberg, 1997 56 Poor Poor Yes C/P Unclear Yes Partially Yes No
Gittelman-Klein, 1976 57 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Yes No Yes
Greenberg, 1972 58 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Partially Yes? Yes
Greenhill, 2002 59 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Yes/LOCF Partially Yes Yes
Handen, 1999 60 Poor Poor Yes #6 Unclear Unclear Yes No No
Hoeppner, 1997 61 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear No No
James, 2001 62 Poor Good Yes NR Unclear Unclear NA No Yes
Kelsey, 2004 63 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kemner, 2004 64 [Confidential information removed]
Klein, 1997 65 Poor Poor Yes #4 Unclear Unclear Partially Yes No
Klorman, 1987 66 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Poor No
Klorman, 1990 67 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear No No
Klorman, 1994 68 Poor Poor Yes I/#2 Unclear Unclear Yes Unclear No
Kolko, 1999 69 Poor Poor Yes #5 Unclear No Yes Unclear No
Kratochvil, 2002 70 Poor Poor No NA Yes/LOCF Yes Yes Yes
Kupietz, 1988 71 Poor Poor Yes P/T/I Unclear Unclear Partially Yes No
Manos, 1999 72 Poor Poor Yes #3 Unclear Unclear NA No No
Michelson, 2001 73 Good Good Yes NR Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes
Michelson, 2002 74 Poor Poor Yes C/CL/I Unclear Yes/LOCF Partially Yes Yes
Michelson, 2004 75 Poor Good Yes C/I Unclear Yes? Partially Yes Yes
MTA, 1999 76 Poor Good Yes #7 Unclear Yes Partially Unclear No
Pelham, 1987 77 Poor Poor Yes I/#2 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes No
Pelham, 1990 78 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear No
Pelham, 1993 79 Poor Poor Yes NR Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear No
Pelham, 1999 80 Poor Poor Yes P/T/I/CL Unclear Unclear Yes Unclear Yes
Was blinding successful?
Was an ITT analysis performed?
Was a complete description of any
withdrawals given?
Was the statistical analysis
appropriate?
Was an association with industry
reported by the authors?
continued
15