Skip to main content

Table 2 Critical appraisal of included reviews based on modified DARE criteria

From: Pornography use and sexting amongst children and young people: a systematic overview of reviews

Critical appraisal questions

Anastassiou (2017) [27]

Barrense-Dias (2017) [28]

Cooper (2016) [25]

Handschuh (2019) [30]

Horvath (2013) [21]

Koletić (2017) [23]

Kosenko (2017) [29]

Peter (2016) [22]

Van Ouytsel (2015) [24]

Watchirs Smith (2016) [31]

Wilkinson (2016) [26]

1. Was an adequate search conducted?a

Yes

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

2. Was there adequate reporting of inclusion/exclusion criteria?b

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3. Were data synthesised?c

Yes

Yes+

Yes

Yes+

Yes

Yes

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

Yes+

4. Was the quality of individual studies assessed?

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Noe

No

Yes

Uncleare

5. Were adequate study details reported?d

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

  1. aYes = Reported a search of up to two databases plus at least one other source; Yes+ = Searched at least three databases. bYes = Reported criteria covering all or most of the following key review components: population; behaviour (i.e. pornography, sexting or both); issue or outcomes of interest; and publication/study type. cYes = Adequate narrative synthesis reported. Yes+ = Data from multiple studies combined statistically using a well-described process of meta-analysis or authors provided a more detailed and comprehensive narrative synthesis. dYes = Review included a table of characteristics that reported a range of relevant information about each included study. No = Few details about included studies were reported. efurther information provided in the main text
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053