Skip to main content

Table 3 Overview of the methodological quality appraisal of the 20 included studies

From: Parents’ experiences of life after medicalised conception: a thematic meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature

 

Study

Aims

Methodology

Design

Recruitment

Data collection

Reflexivity

Ethical issues

Data analysis

Statement of findings

Valuable

Score and overall rating (0–10)

1

Dornelles et al. (2016) [27]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

2

Sonego et al. (2017)[14]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(6)

3

Walker et al. (2017) [10]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

4

Warmelink et al. (2016) [30]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

N

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

5

French et al. (2015) [12]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

High

(8)

6

Ranjbar et al. (2015) [9]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

7

Dornelles et al. (2014) [34]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(6)

8

Lin et al. (2013) [35]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

High

(8.5)

9

Smorti and Smorti (2013) [36]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7.5)

10

Dornelles and Lopes (2011) [37]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Low

(4.5)

11

Silva and Lopes (2011) [38]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Moderate

(6)

12

Hayashi and Sayama (2009) [11]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Moderate

(7.5)

13

Díaz Sáez et al. (2021) [40]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

14

Sadeghi et al. (2019) [42]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7.5)

15

Mohammadi et al. (2015) [43]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

High

(8.5)

16

Bracks-Zalloua et al. (2011) [44]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

High

(8)

17

Boz et al. (2021) [46]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

High

(9)

18

Allan et al. (2019) [48]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

19

Crespo and Bestard (2016) [50]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

C T

(0.5)

Yes

(1)

Moderate

(7)

e

20

Katsumara et al. (2014) [51]

Yes

(1)

Yes

(1)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

No

(0)

Yes

(1)

No

(0)

No

(0)

C T

(0.5)

Low

(4.5)

 

% of included studies rated as ‘Yes’

100%

100%

50%

35%

60%

0%

55%

35%

90%

80%

 
  1. Abbreviation: CT Can’t Tell
Back to article page

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us