Skip to main content

Table 3 Specific quality threshold for sensitivity analysis used for different tools

From: Methodological tools and sensitivity analysis for assessing quality or risk of bias used in systematic reviews published in the high-impact anesthesiology journals

StudyTool and threshold
Wong, 2013 [11]Chorti et al. criteria: The maximum score of the checklist is 26; 50% of maximum score is cut-off for high-quality study
Grant, 2016 [12]Jadad: high risk of bias Jadad score < 4
Johnson, 2007 [13]Jadad: limiting the analysis to those studies with a Jadad score of at least 4
Raiman, 2016 [14]Jadad: removing high bias studies (Jadad score < 3)
Hamilton, 2011 [15]Jadad: score 3 classified as a higher quality study
Hauser, 2011 [16]Jadad: studies with a low (1 to 2) and moderate (3 to 5) Jadad score
Toner, 2017 [17]Jadad: high-quality trials only (Jadad scale score, 4 to 5).
Aya 2013 [18]Jadad: score >3 classified as a higher quality study
Morrison, 2013 [19]Jadad: studies with low quality (Jadad score ≤ 3) vs studies with high quality (Jadad score >3)
Wang, 2009 [20]Jadad: study quality (Jadad score ≥ 3 vs Jadad score ≤ 3)
Sanfilippo, 2017 [21]Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool: Low risk of bias score ranging between 6 and 9
Nagappa, 2017 [22]Newcastle-Ottawa scale: good quality is score ≥ 8 of 9
Schnabel, 2011 [23]Oxford scale: low quality study with 2 points
Schnabel, 2010 [24]Oxford scale: the studies were rated as high (Oxford scale ≥3) or low (Oxford scale >3) quality studies.
Suppan, 2016 [25]Oxford: lower quality studies (Oxford score < 4)
Schnabel, 2012 [26]Oxford: ‘high quality’: Oxford scale > 3 versus ‘low quality’: Oxford scale 3 points
Schnabel, 2013 [27]Oxford: high-quality trials [modified Oxford scale > 4] vs low-quality trials [modified Oxford scale ≤4
Schnabel, 2013 [28]Oxford: high-quality trials [modified Oxford scale > 4] vs low-quality trials [modified Oxford scale ≤4
Mishriky, 2012 [29]Oxford: restricting the analysis to studies with a modified Oxford score of 4 or higher