Physicians’ attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in pediatrics: a systematic review of quantitative evidence

Zhong, Yajing; Cavolo, Alice; Labarque, Veerle; Gastmans, Chris

doi:10.1186/s12904-023-01260-y

Table 3 Quality appraisal of the included articles

From: Physicians’ attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in pediatrics: a systematic review of quantitative evidence

Articles (n = 23)	Hawker et al. (2002) Criteria^a
Articles (n = 23)	Abstract and Title	Introduction and Aims	Method and Data	Sampling	Data Analysis	Ethics and Bias	Results	Transferability or Generalizability	Implications and Usefulness	Overall Assessment^b
1. Randolph et al. (1999) [39]	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Fair	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	High
2. Keenan et al. (2000) [16]	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Poor	High
3. Sakakihara (2000) [40]	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Poor	Very Poor	Fair	Fair	Good	Moderate
4. Burns et al. (2001) [41]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	High
5. Devictor et al. (2008) [42]	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Fair	High
6. Forbes et al. (2008) [43]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Good	Good	Good	Good	High
7. Kesselheim et al. (2009) [44]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Good	High
8. Hoehn et al. (2009) [45]	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	High
9. Talati et al. (2010) [46]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Fair	Good	Good	Good	High
10. Bahus & Føerde (2011) [47]	Fair	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	Very Poor	Good	Fair	Good	Moderate
11. Morparia et al. (2012) [48]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	High
12. Needle et al. (2012) [49]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	High
13. Rapoport et al. (2013) [50]	Good	Fair	Fair	Poor	Poor	Fair	Good	Poor	Good	Moderate
14. Boss et al. (2015) [17]	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Fair	Fair	Fair	Poor	Good	Moderate
15. Sanchez Varela et al. (2015) [51]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	High
16. Grosek et al. (2016) [52]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Good	High
17. Yotani et al. (2017a) [53]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	High
18. Yotani et al. (2017b) [54]	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Fair	Good	Good	Poor	High
19. Wosinski et al. (2019) [55]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	High
20. Aljethaily et al. (2020) [56]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Poor	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	High
21. Song et al. (2020) [57]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Fair	Fair	Good	Poor	Good	High
22. Yoo et al. (2021) [58]	Good	Good	Good	Poor	Fair	Good	Good	Poor	Good	High
23. Boer et al. (2022) [59]	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	High

^aAppraisal criteria from Hawker et al. (2002). Scoring: Good = 4; Fair = 3; Poor = 2; Very Poor = 1. Appraisal Questions: (1) Did abstract and title provide a clear description of the study? (2) Did the article have a clear background and a clear statement of the research aims? (3) Is the method appropriate and clearly explained? (4) Was the sampling strategy appropriate to address the aims? (5) Was the description of the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? (6) Were ethical issues addressed and was necessary ethical approval obtained? (7) Is there a clear statement describing the findings? (8) Are the findings of this study transferable or generalizable to a wider population? (9) How important are these findings for policies and practice?
^bFor the overall assessment, we followed the cut-off in Cavolo A, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Naulaers G, Gastmans C. Physicians' Attitudes on Resuscitation of Extremely Premature Infants: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2019;143(6):e20183972: maximum score is 36 points. High quality ≥ 30; Moderate quality > 23 and < 30; Low quality ≤ 23

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpalliativecare@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Palliative Care

Contact us