Skip to main content

Table 4 Scoring sheet for study quality assessment

From: Floodplain management in temperate regions: is multifunctionality enhancing biodiversity?

Bias and generic data quality features Specific data quality features Quality element Quality score
Selection and Performance bias: Study design Temporal repetition Before-After (BA) Time Series (>1 replicates before and after) 25
Interrupted BA Time series (>1 replicates before and after) 20
BA comparison (1 Before, >1 After) 15
BA comparison (>1 Before, 1 After) 12
BA comparison (1 Before, 1 After) 10
Deficient BA comparison (e.g. Before-data from archives or not from exactly the same sites) 1
No BA comparison 0
Spatial repetition Gradient of intervention intensity including "zero-control"-sites 25
Site comparison (control/impact-CI) 15
Gradient of intervention intensity without "zero-control"-sites 5
Deficient CI comparison (e.g. Control-data from archives or not from the same period) 1
No CI comparison 0
Assessment bias: Measurement of outcome Replicates per treatment (number of sites) Well replicated ( >4 replications) objective parameters measured in several floodplain (sections) 20
Well replicated ( >4 replications) objective parameters measured in a single floodplain (sections) 12
Replicated (1– 4 replications) objective parameters measured in several floodplain (sections) 10
Replicated (1– 4 replications) objective parameters measured in a single floodplain (section) 6
Unreplicated observations of objective parameters 2
Data gathered by expert opinion or questionnaire 0
Sampling method Sampling method perfectly appropriate for purpose 2
Sampling method of restricted suitability 0
Coverage Large scale (large plots, long sampling sessions or large overall extent) in relation to study aims and studies organisms 2
Intermediate scale in relation to study aims and studies organisms 1
Small scale (small plots, short sampling sessions or small overall extent) in relation to study aims and studies organisms 0
Selection and Performance bias: Baseline comparison (heterogeneity between treatment and control arms with respect to defined confounding factors before treatment) Sampling Treatment and control arms homogenous 2
Treatment and control arms not comparable with respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information 0
Species composition Treatment and control arms homogenous 2
Treatment and control arms not comparable with respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information 0
Habitat type Treatment and control arms homogenous 2
Treatment and control arms not comparable with respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information 0
Other confounding environmental factors (floods, etc.) Treatment and control arms homogenous 2
Treatment and control arms not comparable with respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information 0
Selection and Performance bias: Intra treatment variation (heterogeneity within both treatment and control arms with respect to confounding factors) Location No heterogeneity within treatment and control arms 2
Replicates within treatment and control arms not comparable 0
Intervention type No heterogeneity within treatment and control arms 2
Replicates within treatment and control arms not comparable 0
Habitat type No heterogeneity within treatment and control arms 2
Replicates within treatment and control arms not comparable 0
Reliability of the presented evidence Overall consistency and clarity of the paper High 2
Low 0
Statistical approaches appropriate Yes 2
No 0
Clarity of the description of the method incl. statistical models used High 2
Low 0
Clarity of the presentation of the results (incl. statistics) High 2
Low 0
Missing values for nonsignificant results causing publication bias No 4
   Yes 0