Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality appraisal of retained publications

From: The oral health of refugees and asylum seekers: a scoping review

First author (year)

# CASP criteria satisfied

# unclear criteria

# CASP criteria unmet

Proportion of satisfied criteria n (%)

Assessment

Main unmet criteria

Adams (2013) [54]

9

1

0

9/10 (90 %)

Good

Relationship between researcher and participants not mentioned

Almerich-Silla (2008) [28]

6

2

4

6/10 (60 %)

Good

Reliability and validity of questionnaire not mentioned

No Confidence Interval calculated

Angelillo (1996) [43]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Blackwell (2002) [40]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Cote (2004) [29]

9

1

 

9/10 (90 %)

Good

n/a

Davidson (2006) [5]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Davidson (2007) [15]

   

Review article Excluded

  

el Barbari (1993) [30]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Fox (2010) [52]

    

Not satisfactory

Screening criteria not satisfied

Geltman (2014) [7]

6

3

3

6/12 (50 %)

Satisfactory

Selection of participants not clearly described.

No Confidence Interval calculated

Ghiabi (2014) [3]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Gibbs (2014) [27]

   

Screening criteria for MM not met

  

Gunaratnam (2013) [35]

6

3

3

6/12 (50.0 %)

Satisfactory

Selection of participants not clearly described. Statistical significance of

      

results not assessed No Confidence Interval calculated

Hayes (1998) [32]

6

3

3

6/12 (50 %)

Satisfactory

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Hjern (1991) [31]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Honkala (1992) [48]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

King (2012) [36]

9

1

2

9/12 (75 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Lamb (2009) [9]

8

2

 

8/10 (80 %)

Good

Relationship between researcher and participants not mentioned

Mahajan (2013) [4]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

McNabb (1992) [47]

7

2

3

7/12 (58 %)

Satisfactory

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Mickenautsch (1999) [50]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Nair (1996) [51]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Nicol (2014) [53]

10

  

10/10 (100 %)

Good

n/a

Ogunbodede (2000) [34]

   

Field Report Excluded

  

Okunseri (2008) [39]

9

2

1

9/12 (75 %)

Good

n/a

Prowse (2014) [26]

8

2

 

8/10 (80 %)

Good

Relationship between researcher and participants not mentioned

Puertes-Fernandez (2011) [37]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Response rate of participants not mentioned

Redwood-Campbell (2008) [13]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Riggs (2014) [2]

   

Did not satisfy screening criteria for MM studies

  

Roucka (2011) [16]

6

4

2

6/12 (50.0 %)

Satisfactory

Potential for bias in sample selection Statistical significance of results not assessed No Confidence Interval calculated

Singh (2008) [14]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Smith (2000) [41]

6

2

4

6/12 (50.0 %)

Satisfactory

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Smith (1998) [42]

7

3

2

7/12 (58 %)

Satisfactory

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Todd (1990) [33]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Umamaheswaran-Mahara (2010) [38]

9

1

2

9/12 (75.0 %)

Good

No Confidence Interval calculated

Willis (2005) [56]

10

  

10/10 (100 %)

Good

n/a

Willis (2008) [55]

10

  

10/10 (100 %)

Good

n/a

Willis (2011) [8]

8

1

3

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

Statistical significance of results not assessed

No Confidence Interval calculated

Wolf (1996) [6]

8

2

2

8/12 (66.7 %)

Satisfactory

No Confidence Interval calculated

Zimmerman (1993) [45, 46, 57]

9

2

1

9/12 (75 %)

Good

n/a

Zimmerman (1990) [49]

9

1

2

9/12 (75 %)

Good

n/a

Zimmerman (1993a) [45]

8

3

1

8/12 (66.7 %)

Good

n/a

Zimmerman (1993b) [46]

9

2

1

9/12 (75 %)

Good

n/a

Zimmerman (1995) [44]

10

1

1

10/12 (83.3 %)

Good

n/a