Criteria | Assessment* | Remarks |
---|---|---|

Ellis et al 2002 [11] (Score = 0.71**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | At the beginning of the introduction; contains dependent/independent variables, including population |

Study design | Partially | Not explicitly described, no inconsistencies in the subsequent data collection |

Sampling | Yes | Described, exclusion criteria mentioned; written consent obtained in each case |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information given and depicted in tables |

Randomization | Partially | Randomization performed; exact process of randomization not described |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Partially | Categories of questionnaires given |

Sample size | Partially | Power analysis performed; no information about low response rate of second questionnaire |

Data analysis | Partially | Regression appropriate; no indication regarding the characteristics of participating/non-participating women |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals and ranges indicated |

Confounding factor control | Partially | Control at analysis level with multivariate model, but no attempt to standardize the physician's consultation |

Result depiction | Partially | Described in the text; the secondary result (change of knowledge) was not depicted graphically/in a table. |

Conclusions | Yes | Relevant results are discussed and compared with other studies |

Houlihan et al 2010 [12] (Score = 0.86**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | Listed |

Study design | Yes | Stated |

Sampling | Partially | Inclusion criteria mentioned, procedure not described |

Sample characteristics | Partially | Information only regarding city and ethnic group given; average age of the women only in Discussion section (but without standard deviation); other basic data are not available |

Randomization | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Partially | Reproducible on a limited basis |

Sample size | Yes | No power or variance analysis given; no problems with multiple tests described and significant values were obtained |

Data analysis | Yes | Described |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals indicated |

Confounding factor control | Yes | Control at analysis level with multivariate model |

Result depiction | Yes | Described; significant results depicted in tables |

Conclusions | Yes | Results depicted in a summarized manner and discussed with previous studies; limitations and recall bias reflected |

Kim et al 2004 [13] (Score = 0.75**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | Clearly formulated and discussed throughout the text |

Study design | Partially | That this is a non-comparative study only becomes obvious in the results section |

Sampling | Partially | Described; random- but convenience sample |

Sample characteristics | Partially | Basic data exist, but not tested regarding differences between the sub-groups |

Randomization | Partially | Would have been possible |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Yes | Reproducible |

Sample size | Yes | Variance analysis; significant values obtained |

Data analysis | Partially | Scenarios of conflicts of interest are listed; the questions/answer options/data analysis procedure described, results in the text do not match the table data |

Variance estimate | Yes | Variance estimate performed |

Confounding factor control | Yes | Control at analysis level with multivariate model |

Result depiction | Yes | Results summarized and described in tables |

Conclusions | Partially | Results discussed and compared with other studies; limits listed, possible influence on the results through the chance of winning 3 × $500 was not reflected |

Lemieux et al 2008 [14] (Score = 0.82**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | At the beginning of the method section; contains variables to examine, population, place and timeframe |

Study design | Partially | Not explicitly mentioned, but no inconsistencies result in the subsequent data collection |

Sampling | Partially | Procedure described, exclusion criteria listed; but bias possible as the selection of cooperatives and pharmaceutical companies was made by experts |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information given, steps in the categorization mentioned |

Randomization | n.a. | Not possible as the authors wanted to include all studies in Ontario from the years 1999-2002 |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Yes | Reproducible |

Sample size | Partially | No power analysis |

Data analysis | Yes | Poisson Regression appropriate; handling of missing values described |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals and ranges stated |

Confounding factor control | Partially | Control at analysis level with multivariate model, but the institutions received money as incentive to participate in the study |

Result depiction | Yes | Results depicted in the text and tables |

Conclusions | Yes | Results discussed and compared with other studies |

Loehberg et al 2010 [15] (Score = 0.77**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Partially | At the end of the introduction; calculation of influencing factors through multiple regression analyses unclear |

Study design | Partially | Not explicitly mentioned, no inconsistencies |

Sampling | Yes | Procedure described, inclusion criteria mentioned |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information given |

Randomization | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Partially | Reproducible |

Sample size | Yes | No power- or variance analysis given; no problems mentioned with multiple tests |

Data analysis | Yes | Described |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals and distribution indicated |

Confounding factor control | Yes | Analysis of sub-groups conducted |

Result depiction | Partially | Results depicted in the text and tables do not all follow the objective of the article, but seem to be appropriate in general. |

Conclusions | Partially | Results discussed and compared with other studies; no critical reflection that the information could possibly influence the number of participants |

Mancini et al 2007 [16] (Score = 1.00**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | Described precisely |

Study design | Yes | Described and appropriate |

Sampling | Yes | Procedure described; inclusion criteria mentioned; consent forms collected |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information on the women and sub-groups given; |

Randomization | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Yes | Reproducible |

Sample size | Yes | No power- or variance analysis, sample size seems to be sufficiently large |

Data analysis | Yes | Logistical regression analysis appropriate, individual tests within the framework of descriptive statistics conducted; significance level mentioned |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals and standard deviations given |

Confounding factor control | Yes | Control at analysis level with multivariate model |

Result depiction | Yes | Results of regression analysis are listed in the text and table; not all significant results of the comparisons within the framework of descriptive statistics were also described in the text, but no inconsistencies result |

Conclusions | Yes | Results discussed and compared with other studies |

Mandelblatt et al 2005 [17] (Score = 0.79**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Partially | Described in the abstract, formulation of objective in the text fails to mention the investigation of two interventions |

Study design | Yes | Described and appropriate |

Sampling | Yes | Procedure described; inclusion criteria mentioned; consent forms collected |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information on the women and sub-groups given |

Randomization | Yes | Randomization performed; procedure described |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Yes | Reproducible |

Sample size | Yes | Not obvious whether a power analysis was conducted later; the sample size seems to be sufficient |

Data analysis | Partially | Logistical regression analysis appropriate, tests conducted within the framework of descriptive statistic analysis are not mentioned; handling of missing values described; significance level not given |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals, standard deviations and range given |

Confounding factor control | Partially | Control at analysis level with multivariate model; but in asking the control group, the same standardized questionnaire as in the intervention group was used |

Result depiction | Partially | Secondary results depicted in the text and tables; but the primary result is not mentioned in the text, it is only listed in the table; recording of influencing factors not conducted for both interventions. Differences regarding the objective breast cancer risk between those women who consented to participation in the medication study and those who refused participation were not pointed out. The text only lists percentages and no absolute numbers; consequently, readers have to infer from the tables how many women in total participated in the data collection, and subsequently in the medication study. |

Conclusions | Partially | Results discussed but only partially compared with other studies |

Randonina et al 2008 [18] (Score = 0.91**)
| ||

Research question(s)/Objective(s) | Yes | Appears in the middle of the method section, primary and secondary results are mentioned at the end of the introduction |

Study design | Partially | Not mentioned explicitly for this collection process, only the design of the medication study is described |

Sampling | Yes | Procedure described; including criteria mentioned; consent forms collected |

Sample characteristics | Yes | Basic information on the women and sub-groups given |

Randomization | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Researchers | n.a. | Not possible |

Blinding: Participants | n.a. | Not possible |

Data collection | Yes | Reproducible |

Sample size | Yes | Power analysis given |

Data analysis | Yes | Analysis appropriate and apparent from the objective; handling of missing values described; significance level given |

Variance estimate | Yes | Confidence intervals, standard deviations and ranges given |

Confounding factor control | Yes | Control at analysis level with multivariate model; also, control regarding age distribution based on low response rate for questionnaires; furthermore, an attempt was made to standardize the preceding consultation session |

Result depiction | Partially | Results depicted in the text and tables and correspond with each other; but results of the regression analysis are interpreted in the text as "in connection with" and not as "influence" - the interpretation in the framework of the remark in the table is again depicted correctly |

Conclusions | Yes | Results discussed and compared with other studies |