|
| Methods | Results |
|
| First author | Age |
| Year of publication | Education |
| Other authors | SES or Poverty Index |
| Country | Marital status |
| Location | Smoking |
| Journal | Alcohol problem |
| Data collection dates | |
| Key words | Primary outcome |
| Type of study | Gestational age (days) |
| Number of and time points for observation | Preterm birth (<259 days or <37 w) |
| Inclusion/exclusion | |
| Existing study name | Primary predictor variable |
| Sample size | Descriptive analysis |
| Consent rate, participation rate | Relationships |
| Primary predictor variable | Unadjusted relationships |
| Measurement of PV | Adjusted relationships |
| Other predictor variables | |
| Outcome | Additional comments |
| Potential confounders | |
|
| CASP | Statistical analysis |
|
| Is the clearly focused issue relevant to our study (anxiety and preterm birth)? | Unadjusted analysis:statistic and test |
| Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? That is, is the cohort representative of the population it is supposed to represent? | Appropriate?
Numerically correct? |
| Was the outcome (preterm birth) accurately measured to minimise bias? | Method of adjustment; type of model
Details of model development |
| Have the authors identified all-important confounders? (Age, marital status, ethnicity, education, income or SES, parity, previous PTB) | Appropriate confounders considered? |
| And have they accounted for this in the analysis? | Appropriate control of confounding?
Assessment of linearity assumption |
| Follow-up: completeness | Methods for missing data specified |
| Follow-up: length (note generally not a concern in pregnancy studies) | Overall quality of adjusted analysis |
| Do you believe the results? (on a scientific basis and gut feeling) | Other comments |
|
