Skip to main content

Table 5 Study quality assessment framework for observational, field studies

From: Response of chlorophyll a to total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in lotic ecosystems: a systematic review protocol

Bias area

Characteristic

Low risk of bias

High risk of bias

Study design and sampling

Pairing of nutrient and chl-a measurements

Nutrient and chl-a measurements taken at same place and time or index period

Nutrient and chl-a measurements are not paired in time and space

 

Study timeframe

Sampling includes relevant periods over multiple years

Sampling occurs only over a single season or year

 

Gradient definition

Gradient based on a nutrient related variable or its causal antecedent

Gradient based on a common causal descendant of TP, TN or chl-a

 

Sample size

Acceptable # sites (≥10) across gradient

Low # sites (<10) across gradient low

 

Replicates

Multiple samples taken at each site

Single samples taken at each site

 

Randomization of sampling (selection bias)

Some form of randomized site selection (e.g. stratified random sampling)

No randomization of site selection

 

Confounding factors

If not controlled by study design, confounding factors are measured and adjusted for in statistical analysis

Confounding factors reported and not accounted for, or are likely, and are not able to be adjusted for post hoc

Data analysis and results

Clarity and detail

Analysis methods described in detail sufficient to permit repeating

Missing information not allowing for repeatability

 

Uncertainty

Some estimate of uncertainty in effect or relationships provided (e.g. confidence intervals, standard error, standard deviation, etc.)

No estimates of uncertainty provided

 

Reporting bias

All variables, measurements, and statistical tests mentioned in methods are reported in results or additional file

Some variables, measurements, or statistical tests mentioned in methods are not reported

Other biases

Detection bias

No indication that outcomes were measured differently in high versus low exposure sites

Some indication that outcomes were measured differently in high versus low exposure sites

 

Attrition bias

No differences in loss of high versus low exposure sites

Differences in loss of high versus low exposure sites

 

Research aim consistency

Questions clearly stated and answers match questions

Questions not clearly stated or answers do not match stated questions