Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Assessment of methodological quality of studies included in the review

From: Female genital mutilation and cutting: a systematic literature review of health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice

Reference Representativeness Survey validity Score out of 8
  Profession of respondents described Age or years of practice Gender Setting Sampling procedure Response rate reported Pre-test Expert review  
Publications from African Countries
 Ashimi et al. 2014 [21] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7
 Kaplan et al. 2013 [22] Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 7
 Ali et al. 2012 [23] Yes Yes Noa Yes No No No No 3
 Dike et al. 2012 [24] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7
 Rasheed et al. 2011 [25] Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 3
 Refaat 2009 [26] Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 5
 Mostafa et al. 2006 [27] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 6
 Onuh et al. 2006 [28] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7
Publications from “Western Countries”
 Caroppo et al. 2014 [29] Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 5
 Purchase et al. 2013 [30] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No 5
 Relph et al. 2013 [31] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7
 Moeed et al. 2012 [20] Yes No No No Yes Yes No No 3
 Hess et al. 2010 [32] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 7
 Kaplan-Marcusan et al. 2009 [33] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 6
 Leye 2008 [34] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8
 Zaidi et al. 2007 [35] Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 5
 Tamaddon et al. 2006 [36] Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 5
 Jager et al. 2002 [37] Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No 4
  1. “Yes” indicates that this criterion was adequately reported in the paper
  2. aThe sample consisted of “midwives” and it is assumed that all would have been female given the cultural setting for this study