Skip to main content

Table 2 Integrated quality criteria for review of multiple studies (ICROMS)

From: Protocols, policies and practices for antimicrobial stewardship in hospitalized patients in least-developed and low-income countries: a systematic review

Dimension

Specific criteria

Ackers et al. [31]

Joshi et al. [27]

Gebretekle et al. [28]

Hall et al. [24]

Hearn et al. [29]

Gentilotti et al. [32]

Lester et al. [30]

Nauriyal et al. [25]

Alabi et al. [33]

Nelson et al. [26]

Study type

Qualitative

ITS

N-CITS

Qualitative

CBA

CBA

NCBA (Quasi experimental)

CBA

NCBA

RCT

Clear aims and justification

Clear statement of the aims of the area of research

YES1

YES

Yes

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Rationale for number of pre- and post-intervention points or adequate baseline measurement

 

2

Yes

   

YES

 

NO

 

Explanation for lack of control group

  

2

   

2

 

1

 

Appropriateness of qualitative methodology

2

  

2

      

Appropriate study design

YES

  

YES

      

Managing bias in sampling or between groups

Sequence generation

         

YES

Allocation concealment

         

YES

Justification for sample choice

  

Yes

   

YES

 

YES

 

Intervention and control group selection designed to protect against systematic difference/detection bias

    

YES

YES

 

YES

  

Comparability of groups

          

Sampling and recruitment

Yes (convenience sampling)

  

YES (convenience sampling)

      

Managing bias in outcome measurements and blinding

Blinding

         

YES

Baseline management—protection against selection bias

    

YES

YES

 

YES

  

Protection against contamination

    

YES

YES

 

YES

  

Protection against secular changes

 

YES (post intervention survey was during another season)

        

Protection against detection bias: Blinded assessment of primary outcomes

 

2

2

 

2

2

2

2

1

2

Reliable outcome measures

0

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

Comparability of outcomes

          

Managing bias in follow-up

Follow-up of subjects (protection against exclusion bias)

         

2

Follow-up of patients or episodes of care

         

2

Incomplete outcome data addressed

0

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

 

2

Managing bias in other study aspects

Protection against detection bias: Intervention unlikely to affect data collection

 

2

2

 

2

2

2

2

 

2

Protection against information bias

          

Data collection appropriate to address research aims

1

  

2

      

Attempts to mitigate effects of no control

  

YES

   

YES

   

Analytical rigour

Sufficient data points to enable reliable statistical inference

 

YES

        

Shaping of intervention effect specified

 

2

        

Analysis of sufficiently rigorous/free from bias

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Managing bias in reporting/ethical considerations

Free of selective outcome reporting

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Limitations addressed

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Conclusions clear and justified

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Free of other bias

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

Ethics issues addressed

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Total score

 

11

24

21

19

20

18

22

22

20

24

  1. 1YES = Mandatory criteria met, 1 = Score for unclear description, 2 = Score for satisfactory description
Back to article page

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control

ISSN: 2047-2994

Contact us