Skip to main content

Table 1 Cross-sectional studies graded by NIH Quality Assessment Tool [21]

From: The association between self-efficacy and self-care in essential hypertension: a systematic review

No. Name of paper Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 QR
1 Ahn & Ham 2016 [22] Y N NR NR Y N N Y CD N Y N NA Y Fair
2 Al Noumani 2018 [23] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
3 Bae et al. 2016 [24] Y Y NR Y N N N Y Y N N N NA Y Fair
4 Bahari et al. 2019 [25] Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
5 Breaux-Shropshire et al. 2012 [26] Y N Y NR N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Fair
6 Chang & Sok, 2015 [27] Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
7 Ea et al., 2018 [28] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
8 Elder et al., 2012 [29] Y Y NR Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Fair
9 Gacek, 2014 [30] Y Y NR Y N N N Y NR N NR N NA N Fair
10 Giena, Thongpat & Nitirat, 2018 [31] Y Y NR Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Fair
11 Heydari et al. 2014 [32] Y Y NR Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA N Fair
12 Hu, Li & Arao, 2015 [33] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
13 Idowu et al., 2012 [34] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
14 Khalesi, Irwin & Sun, 2017 [35] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
15 Lee & Park, 2017 [36] Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
16 Lee et al., 2010 [37] Y Y NR Y N N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Fair
17 Ma, 2018 [38] Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
18 Nafradi et al. 2016 [39] Y N NR NR N N N Y Y N Y N NA N Fair
19 Namwong et al. 2015 [40] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
20 Pinprapapan et al., 2013 [41] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
21 Son & Won 2017 [42] Y Y NR Y Y N N Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
22 Warren-Findlow et al. 2012 [43] Y Y NR Y N N N N Y N Y N NA Y Fair
  1. Each study was assessed for quality with the NIH Quality Assessment Tool by two independent authors. Differences in grading were resolved by an arbitrator. The final grading of each article on each question in the NIH Quality Assessment Tool is shown here
  2. Y Yes, N No, CD Cannot determine, NR Not reported, NA Not applicable, QR Quality Rating
  3. Q1: 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?
  4. Q2: 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined
  5. Q3: 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?
  6. Q4: 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study pre-specified and applied uniformly to all participants?
  7. Q5: 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?
  8. Q6: 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?
  9. Q7: 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?
  10. Q8: 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?
  11. Q9: 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
  12. Q10: 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?
  13. Q11: 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
  14. Q12: 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?
  15. Q13: 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?
  16. Q14: 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
\