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