Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies*

From: A systematic review of the prevalence of parental concerns measured by the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS)indicating developmental risk

First author Year Random sample or whole population Unbiased sampling frame (i.e. census data) Adequate sample size (>300 subjects) Measures were the standard Outcomes measured by unbiased assessors Adequate response rate (70%) and refusers described Confidence intervals and subgroup analysis Study subjects descirbed Quality risk rating/8
Bethell 2011 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
NSCH 2011/2012 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
CHIS 2003 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
CHIS 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
CHIS 2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
CHIS 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
Ibironke 2011 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Zuckerman 2009 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Glascoe 2013 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Stevens 2006 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 6
Ng 2010 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Restall 2009 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 6
VSEHQ 2008 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Davies 2009 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5
Glascoe 1999 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 5
Glascoe 1997 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 5
Rose Jacobs 2008 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5
Glascoe 2010 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Glascoe 2010 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Kosht-Fedyshin 2006 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4
Limbos 2011 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5
Oreto 2010 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Tough 2008 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
Armstrong 2008 0 1 0 1   0 0 1 3
Campos 2010 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Coghlan 2003 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3
Kiing 2012 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
McGookin 2011 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Palarca 2008 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 3
Roux 2011 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Theeranate 2005 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3
Wake 2005 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
Gustawan 2010 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3
Chuan 2012 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Mahli 2002 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Matibag 2008 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Sices 2009 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
  1. *Quality rating system as per quality rating tool developed by Public Health Agency in Canada [19].