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.