Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment

From: Systematic review: the bioavailability of orally administered antibiotics during the initial phase of a systemic infection in non-ICU patients

 

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Study

Sample selection criteria

Comparability

Outcome & evaluation

Summary score/10

 

Representativeness sample: 2 points if the sample is a truly representative of the average in the target population; 1 point if the sample is somewhat representative of target population; no points if unclear or no description

Sample size: 1 point is sample size is justified by using power analysis; no points if not justified

Ascertainment of disease state or diagnosis: 2 points if validated or accepted tool was used; 1 point if non-validated or non-accepted, but well described; no points if unclear or no description

Comparability:

1 point if group design and groups are comparable; no points when groups are not comparable, 1 point when no comparative design was used; 1 point if the study controls for possible confounders

Assessment outcomes: 1 point if appropriate blood collection/drug concentration measurement and laboratory procedures used; No points if unclear or no description of procedure

Statistical test (analysis of outcomes): 2 points if population pharmacokinetic modelling with co-variate analysis or conventional 2-stage method with co-variate analysis or non-compartmental analysis with rich sampling (≥3/dosing interval); 1 point if outcome variables summarized while expressing variability; no points if the statistical test is unclear, incomplete or not described

 

Bohte, 1995 [21]

3/10: low

Davies, 1986 [23]

3/10: low

Davies, 1984 [24]

1/10: low

Davies, 1979 [22]

1/10: low

Farid, 1975 [25]

4/10: low

Guay, 1987 [29]

6/10: high

Offman, 2000 [26]

9/10: high

Patel, 1995 [27]

8/10: high

Ramirez, 1985 [28]

4/10: low