Skip to main content

Table 2 Assessment of articles included in the review

From: Factors related to advance directives completion among cancer patients: a systematic review

Authors/ Year

Abstract and title

Introduction and aims

Method and data

Sampling

Data analysis

Ethics and bias

Results

Transferability generalizability

Implications usefulness

Total

Average

Grade

Wang et al. 2021 [36]

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

3

4

33

3.6

Good

Cohen et al. 2021 [37]

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

2

27

3

Good

Berkowitz et al. 2021 [38]

4

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

3

32

3.5

Good

Bar-Sela et al. 2021 [39]

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

31

3.4

Good

Rodenbach et al. 2020 [40]

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

34

3.7

Good

Brown et al. 2016 [19]

4

4

4

3

3

3

4

3

4

32

3.5

Good

Kish et al. 2000 [41]

2

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

27

3

Good

Dow et al. 2010 [42]

4

4

2

2

4

3

2

3

3

27

3

Good

Kubi et al. 2020 [43]

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

32

3.5

Good

Saeed et al. 2019 [44]

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

29

3.2

Good

Prater et al. 2019 [45]

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

3

32

3.5

Good

Bires et al. 2018 [46]

3

3

4

2

3

3

3

3

4

27

3

Good

McDonald et al. 2017 [31]

4

4

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

30

3.3

Good

Kim et al. 2017 [47]

4

4

3

2

3

3

3

4

4

30

3.3

Good

Zheng et al. 2016 [13]

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

4

4

29

3.2

Good

Tan and Jatoiet al. 2008 [48]

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

34

3.7

Good

True et al. 2005 [49]

4

3

3

3

4

3

4

3

4

31

3.4

Good

Seifart et al. 2020 [50]

4

4

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

31

3.4

Good

Zaros et al. 2013 [51]

3

3

3

2

3

3

4

3

3

27

3

Good

Wallace et al. 2001 [52]

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

32

3.5

Good

Lin et al. 2019 [53]

4

4

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

28

3.1

Good

Sudore et al. 2018 [54]

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

36

4

Good

Total

3.7

3.6

3.1

3

3.3

3.1

3.5

3.4

3.5

30.2

3

Good