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