Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Assessing the quality of the papers

From: Health vulnerabilities of readymade garment (RMG) workers: a systematic review

(A) Assessing the quality of the quantitative studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)
Author(s) & Year of publication Selection Bias Study Design Confounders Blinding Data Collection Methods Withdrawals & Drop-outs Intervention Integrity Analyses Scores Attained Ratings (1–3 = weak, 4–6 = moderate, 7–8 = strong)   
Chumchai et al., 2015 [7] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Shanbhag & Bobby, 2012 [8] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Chen et al., 2017 [6] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Padmini & Venmathi, 2012 [22] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 moderate   
Makurat et al., 2016 [11] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Parimalam et al., 2007 [27] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Ahmed & Raihan, 2014 [4] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Fatema et al., 2014 [29] 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 moderate   
Hasnain et al., 2014 [26] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Rahman & Rahman, 2013 [28] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 moderate   
Steinisch et al., 2013 [10] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Steinisch et al., 2014 [31] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Khan et al., 2015 [24] 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 moderate   
Fitch et al., 2017 [25] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Akhter et al., 2010 [23] 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 moderate   
Fitch et al., 2015 [30] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
(B) Assessing the quality of the quantitative part of mixed-method studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)   
Saha et al., 2010 [9] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
De Silva et al., 2013 [32] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
Lombardo et al., 2012 [17] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 strong   
(C) Assessing the quality of the qualitative part of mixed-method studies through using CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)   
Author(s) & Year of publication Clear research goal/aims Appropriate methodology Appropriate research design Appropriate recruitment strategy Justification of the way of data collection Researcher & participants relationship considered Consideration of ethical issues Rigorous data analysis Explicit findings Value of research Scores attained Ratings (1–4 = weak, 5–8 = moderate, 9–10 = strong)
Saha et al., 2010 [9] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 strong
De Silva et al., 2013 [32] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 strong
Lombardo et al., 2012 [17] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 strong