China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Emerging Therapeutic Potential of Nanoparticles in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials
Published in Raj Bawa, János Szebeni, Thomas J. Webster, Gerald F. Audette, Immune Aspects of Biopharmaceuticals and Nanomedicines, 2019
Minnie Au, Theophilus I. Emeto, Jacinta Power, Venkat N. Vangaveti, Hock C. Lai
Two independent reviewers (M.A and J.P) assessed the validity of the studies using the Jadad score [39] for randomized control trials (RCT) and the Therapy CA Worksheet [40], for intervention studies. If there was any disagreement, the third reviewer (T.I.E.) interceded to make a final decision. The Jadad score assesses randomization, blinding, and attrition to derive a score ranging from 0 (low quality) to 5 (high quality). For this review, a Jadad score greater than 2 was deemed to be of sound methodology. The Therapy CA Worksheet assesses whether the study was randomized, whether there was sufficient and complete follow-up, and whether groups were analyzed according to their random allocations, blinding, group characteristics and outcome (mean survival). Articles were categorized as “low,” “moderate,” or “high” according to analysis.
A systematic review of small sided games within rugby: Acute and chronic effects of constraints manipulation
Published in Journal of Sports Sciences, 2021
Marco Zanin, Jayamini Ranaweera, Joshua Darrall-Jones, Dan Weaving, Kevin Till, Gregory Roe
The quality of the studies included in this systematic review was assessed with the Quality Index proposed by Downs and Black (SH Downs & Black, 1998) for randomized and non-randomized studies (Appendix B). The Quality Index has been used frequently in the sport science literature (Cummins et al., 2013; Emery et al., 2015; Freckleton & Pizzari, 2013; Johnston et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2020), and applied specifically to SSG research in soccer (Bujalance-Moreno et al., 2019). The Quality Index is the sum of scores from the twenty-seven items of the checklist – higher scores indicate higher quality – which were grouped into four sections: reporting, external validity, internal validity, and power of the study (SH Downs & Black, 1998). The Quality Index showed a high test-retest reliability (r = 0.88), internal consistency (k = 0.89), and good inter-rater reliability (r = 0.75) (SH Downs & Black, 1998). Furthermore, the performance of the checklist was similar between randomized and non-randomized studies (SH Downs & Black, 1998). In addition, a comparison of multiple quality assessment scales (e.g., PEDro scale, Delphi list, Jadad scale) through a systematic review of the literature showed that the Quality Index was the only scale characterized by internal consistency (Olivo et al., 2008).