Development of a Care Bundle for Stroke Survivors with Psychological Symptoms: Evidence Summary and Delphi Study
Table 4
Evaluation results.
(a)
Guideline
Scope and purpose
Stakeholder involvement
Rigour of development
Clarity of presentation
Applicability
Editorial independence
Numbers of domain (≥60%)
Numbers of domain (≥30%)
ASA/AHA, 2018
65.28
56.94
80.21
91.67
28.13
83.33
4
5
NSF, 2017
87.50
95.83
81.77
83.33
69.79
93.75
6
6
CSBPR, 2016
75.93
72.22
67.36
90.74
56.94
100
5
6
ASA/AHA, 2016
77.78
62.96
41.67
74.07
31.94
100
4
6
RCP, 2016
88.89
86.11
80.21
83.33
59.38
97.92
5
6
CSBPR, 2015
75.93
72.22
67.36
90.74
56.94
100
5
6
(b)
Items (expert consensus)
Evaluation (yes/no/unclear/not applicable)
Is the source of the opinion clearly identified?
Yes
Does the source of opinion have standing in the field of expertise?
Yes
Are the interests of the relevant population the central focus of the opinion?
Yes
Is the stated position the result of an analytical process, and is there logic in the opinion expressed?
Yes
Is there reference to the extant literature?
Yes
Is any incongruence with the literature/sources logically defended?
No
(c)
Items (systematic review)
Eng
Saunders
Graven
Ginkel
Hackett
Firth
Goyal
Lyu
Zou
Zou
Au
Waits
Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
Yes
Yes
Partial Yes
Partial Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial yes
Partial yes
Partial yes
Partial yes
Partial yes
Yes
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Partial Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No meta-analysis
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No meta-analysis
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
These five systematic reviews are mentioned in the evidence summary of JBI.
(d)
Items (randomized controlled trial)
Vahlberg
Johansson
Danseur
Was true randomization used for assignment of participants to treatment groups?
Yes
Unclear
Yes
Was allocation to treatment groups concealed?
Yes
No
Yes
Were treatment groups similar at the baseline?
Unclear
Yes
Yes
Were participants blind to treatment assignment?
No
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment?
No
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Were outcomes assessors blind to treatment assignment?
Yes
No
No
Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analyzed?
Yes
No
No
Were participants analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized?
Yes
No
No
Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviations from the standard RCT design (individual randomization, parallel groups) accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial?
Yes
Yes
Yes
(e)
Items (cross-sectional study)
Verdonschot
Zhi
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
Yes
Yes
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Yes
Yes
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
Yes
Yes
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
Yes
Yes
Were confounding factors identified?
Yes
No
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Yes
No
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
