Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality assessments of the included studies

From: Systematic review: cultural adaptation and feasibility of screening for autism in non-English speaking countries

Authors Albores-Gallo et al. [50] Ben-Sasson and Carter [13] Beuker et al. [51] Canal-Bedia et al. [53] Carakovac et al. [56] Fombonne et al. [49] Kamio et al. [47] Kamio et al. [46] Kara et al. [57] Kondolot et al. [55]
Quality assessment criteria
 1. Question/objective sufficiently described 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 2. Study design evident and appropriate 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
 4. Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 8. Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to any measurement/misclassification bias. Means of assessment reported 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
 9. Sample size appropriate 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
10. Analytical methods described/justified and appropriate 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
 11. Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 12. Controlled for confounding 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
 13. Results reported in sufficient detail 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
 Total sum = (number of “yes” *2) + (number of “partials” * 1) 18 16 16 16 14 15 15 15 15 16
 Total possible sum = 28 − (number of “N/A” * 2) 22 20 20 20 22 22 20 20 20 20
 Summary score: total sum/total possible sum 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.68 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.80
Authors Mohammed (2012) Mohammadian et al. [45] Nygren et al. [54] Perera et al. [53] Perera et al. [19] Samadi and McConkey [7] Seif Eldin et al. [42] Seung et al. [48] Wong et al. [44]
Quality assessment criteria
 1. Question/objective sufficiently described 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
 2. Study design evident and appropriate 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2
 4. Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2
 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
 8. Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to any measurement/misclassification bias. Means of assessment reported 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2
 9. Sample size appropriate 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
10. Analytical methods described/justified and appropriate 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
 11. Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
 12. Controlled for confounding N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 2 N/A 2
 13. Results reported in sufficient detail 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
 Total sum = (number of “yes” *2) + (number of “partials” * 1) 17 16 18 12 17 15 14 16 19
 Total possible sum = 28 − (number of “N/A” * 2) 22 20 20 20 22 20 22 20 22
 Summary score: total sum/total possible sum 0.77 0.80 0.90 0.60 0.77 0.75 0.64 0.80 0.86
  1. * Yes (2), Partial (1), No (0), NA = Not applicable for this study design