Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of methodological quality of included studies

From: Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

MMATa criteria

Screening questions

Quantitative/ control group

Quantitative non-randomized

Total

Study

Clear research questions or objectives?

Do collected data address the research questions/objective?

2.1 Clear description of randomization?

2.2 Clear description of allocation concealment (or blinding)?

2.3 Complete outcome data (≥80%)?

2.4 Low withdrawal/drop-out (< 20%)?

3.1 Participants/organizations recruitment - minimizes selection bias?

3.2 Appropriate measurements used for intervention & outcomes?

3.3 Participants/organizations comparable, or are differences accounted for?

3.4 Complete outcome data (80% or above) or acceptable follow-up rate?

 

Aboulfalah 2001 (PC) [30]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Al-Shaikh 2013 (PC) [31]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Blanco 1992 (PC) [32]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Cieminski 2015 (RC)

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Cunha 1999 (PC) [34]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Flamm 1987 (PC) [36]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Flamm 1997 (PC) [35]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Geetha 2012 (PC) []37

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Goldman 1998 (PC) [38]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Grobman 2007 (PC)

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Grubb 1996 (RCT) [40]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Horenstein 1984 (RC) [42]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Horenstein 1985 (PC) [41]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Kehl 2016 (PC) [43]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Lao 1987 (RC) [44]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Lelaidier 1994 (RCT) [45]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Manish 2016 (RCT) [46]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Ogbonmwan 2010 (RC) [47]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Palatnik 2015 (RC) [48]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Ramya 2015 (RCT) [49]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Rayburn 1999 (RCT) [50]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰✰ 100%

Sakala 1990a (RC) [51]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Sakala 1990b (RC) [52]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Shah 2017 (RC) [53]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Shatz 2013 (RC) [54]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Sims 2001 (RC) [55]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Taylor 1993 (RCT) [56]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

Tussupkaliyer 2016 (PC) [57]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰ 50%

Yogev 2004 (RC) [58]

NA

NA

NA

NA

✰✰✰ 75%

  1. PC prospective cohort, RC retrospective cohort, RCT randomized controlled trial, NA not applicable
  2. a Assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, Version 2011
  3. Total score is out of 4 stars (✰✰✰✰) for controlled randomized quantitative studies (2.1 to 2.4) and quantitative non-randomized studies (3.1 to 3.4), whereby each assessment criterion met by a study was awarded a star (✰), and a criterion not met by a study was marked with a dash (−);