Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality of studies

From: Ethnic inequalities in time to diagnosis of cancer: a systematic review

CASP question Was the cohort representative of a defined population? Was everybody included Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Was the outcome precisely measured to minimize bias? Have the authors identified and adjusted for all key confounding factors? How precise are the results? Overall quality
Adapted question Unchanged Were all eligible cancer patients studied? Was ethnicity defined according to contemporary groupings? Was diagnostic intervals measured to Olsen and colleagues framework? Unchanged. Key confounders include: age, gender, SES, co-morbidity, healthcare system, family history of cancer and tumour growth rates Have they presented estimates of association along with the confidence intervals? Are the confidence intervals narrow? Unchanged
Rajan et al. (2011) [14] Met Unmet Partially met Met Unmet Unmet Sat
Meechan et al. (2002) [15] Met Partially met Met Met Unmet Unmet Sat
Velikova et al., (2004) [16] Met Partially met Unmet Partially met Partially met Partially met Sat
Nosarti et al. (2000) [17] Met Met Met Partially met Partially met Unmet Sat
Neal and Allgar (2005) [18] Met Met Met Partially met Partially met Partially met Med
Sadler et al. (2009) [19] Met Met Met Partially met Unmet Unmet Sat
Metcalfe et al. (2008) [20] Met Partially met Partially met Met Partially met Met Sat
  1. Note: Sat satisfactory; Med medium quality paper.