Quality Assessment of Studies: Systematic Review on Prostate Cancer Survivorship and Psychosexual Care
Qualitative studies were assessed using . All studies (n = 17) described withdrawal and dropout rates. They also presented clear and appropriate methods and outcomes. Blinding was not applicable in any study, as there were no randomised clinical trials. The flow of participants was represented in a ‘consort style’ diagram in 17 studies. Allocation concealments of participants were not appropriate. Greater than 80% of participants did provide follow-up data of interest. No studies had sample size calculated statistically. An adequate summary of results for each study outcome was provided in all studies. Sampling was explicitly defined, as was the method of recruitment and intervention.
- 1.Frew G, Dashfield E. Testing care pathways for prostate cancer survivors. Nurs Times. 2012;108:30–1.Google Scholar
- 4.Pavlovich CP, Levinson AW, Su LM, Mettee LZ, Feng Z, Bivalacqua TJ, Trock BJ. Nightly vs on-demand sildenafil for penile rehabilitation after minimally invasive nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of a randomized double-blind trial with placebo. BJU Int. 2013;112:844–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, Januel JM, Sundararajan V. Practice of epidemiology: updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:676–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Reason P. The Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. In: Bradbury H, editor. California: Sage; 2008.Google Scholar