Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

130AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool purpose bStudy designscovered cType of tool d(weighting)Items justified?Items by design?No. of itemsTool validity eInter-raterreliability fIntra-raterreliability fTest-retest fInternalconsistency fTime to completeUsed in otherreviews?Review referencenumberAppendix 3Maziak, 1998 192 n 7 RCTs, NRS s e n n 10 na 0.87 K na na na n nMcAweeney, 1997 325 n 7 RCTs, Quasi-Exp; s e n n 36 na na na na na n ncorrelational studiesMcCusker, 1998 328 m Chalmers, 1981 51 7 Comparative trials, s e n n 6 na 0.84 r (CI: 0.55 na na na n nlongitudinal comparison to 0.95)of at least two groupsMcMaster, 1981 80 n 3 RCTs c n n 6 na na na na na n y 326, 327Meijman, 1995 193 m Fowkes, 1991 107 2 Any s e n n 11 na Mediocre/ Mediocre/ na na n ngood good at15 monthsMeinert, 1986 329 n 2 CCTs c n n 25 na na na na na n nMelchart, 1994 93 n 7 RCTs, NRS s e n n 15 Cr 82% a na na na n nMiller, 1995 87 n 7 RCTs, Matched groups s u n y 12 na 80.7% a na na na n yMoncrieff, 1998 195 n 3 CCTs s e n n 30 na 0.924 r (CI: 0.833 na na 0.873 CA n nto 0.966)Morin, 1994 330 n 7 RCTs, NRS s e n n 6 na na na na na n nMorley, 1996 196 m Chalmers, 1981 51 2/6 RCTs, NRS s u n n 30 na Dichotomous na na na n yvariables 80% a(range 62–98%);continuousvariables:0.91 r (range0.76–0.97)Morris, 1988 331 m Bergin and 2 RCTs, NRS; Coh; CS s e n n 23 na 0.619 K (range na na Design factors, na nLambert,1978 405 0.308–0.824; SD 0.52 a ;0.136) measurementintegrity, 0.64;treatmentvalidity, 0.25continued