Supplemental Table 1 - Quality Appraisal Scores, Strengths, and Weaknesses of Selected Studies

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Aldword

Supplemental Table 1 presents quality appraisal scores, strengths, and weaknesses for selected studies across wound-related topics, including malignant fungating wounds, lower leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, and additional study continuations. It reports CCAT/JBI-derived ratings (e.g., average percentages) alongside methodological strengths such as comprehensive search strategies, transparent eligibility assessment, and use of appraisal frameworks like AGREE II and CASP. Common weaknesses include limited language scope, unclear search terms, reviewer or eligibility process limitations, restricted regional applicability, and insufficient reporting of evidence grading or guideline implementation information.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

Supplemental Table 1: Overview

Malignant Fungating Wounds

Lower Leg Ulcers

Continuation

Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Supplemental Table 1. QUALITY APPRAISAL SCORES, STRENGTHS, AND WEAKNESSES OF SELECTED STUDIES First Author, Year Design CCAT or JBI scores (average),% Strengths Weaknesses | Malignant Fungating Wounds | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Adderley et al,17 2014 | Systematic review | 95/95.4
(95.2) | Recommendations for practice based on appraisal of included studies’ risk of bias and methodological limitations | Limitations of the study NR | | Ousey et al,18 2014 | Integrative review | 80/100 (90) | Comprehensive search was conducted
Eligibility assessment according to CASP criteria | Limitations of the study NR | | Lower Leg Ulcers | | | | | | Weller et al,20 2018 | Scoping review | 70/80 (75) | Comprehensive search was conducted No language restriction
Eligibility assessment conducted by at least two researchers according to specified criteria | Only one reviewer screened full-text articles and extracted data from guidelines in languages other than English
Several of the included guidelines did not report recommendation level of evidence | | Andriessen et al,21 2017 | Review | 100/90 (95) | Comprehensive search was conducted Independent screening for inclusion
Used AGREE II to review quality of guidelines | Limited to English and German publications The quality grade and methodological weaknesses of included studies NR Information on guideline implementation was lacking
Good clinical response to compression therapy not addressed | | Neumann et al,19 2016 | Guideline | 75/80 (77.5) | Guidelines presented evidence-based approach for treatment supporting daily practice Recommendations are graded according to strength of evidence | Search terms not provided
Did not report number of researchers involved with eligibility assessment
Guideline specific to Europe, limited generalizability.
Working group did not use the scheme by the Wound Care Consultant Society (WCS)for the description of the treatment of wounds | | Ratliff et al,22 2016 | Algorithm development:
scoping review, consensus, content validation | 70/90 (80) | Comprehensive search was conducted Eligibility assessment conducted by three researchers with clinical expertise Consensus panel: a variety of clinicians from varied settings
Content validation done
Processes followed were comprehensive, feasible, and appropriate | The second search included only studies with products available in the USA. Limitation to generalizability
Limitations of the study NR | | Carter,26 2014 | Review | 85/86.3
(85.6) | Eligibility determined according to clearly stated inclusion and exclusion criteria Comprehensive search was conducted (1974 to 2013)
Evidence was graded | Limited to English publications
Number of researchers involved with eligibility assessment and quality appraisal was NR | Miller et al,25 2014 Prospective single-sample cohort 70/65 (67.5) The educational program and data collection tool were reviewed by clients, education and content experts prior to the study Assessed several domains of behavior change Prompted future research Limitations of the study were reported Reported limitations: Lack of standardized timeframes between intervention and data collection Data from two related studies with different primary objectives Limited generalization Measurement tools not validated Randomization and blinding techniques not clearly reported Small sample sizes (continues) Supplemental Table 1. QUALITY APPRAISAL SCORES, STRENGTHS, AND WEAKNESSES OF SELECTED STUDIES, CONTINUED CCAT or JBI scores First Author, Year Design (average),% Strengths Weaknesses | Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health,27 2013 | Review | 80/75 (77.5) | Transparency in reporting included guidelines’and studies’ characteristics, strengths and weaknesses
Limitations of the study were reported | Reported limitations of this review:
Limited high-grade evidence was found-several based on ex

FAQs

What does Supplemental Table 1 summarize?

Supplemental Table 1 summarizes quality appraisal scores and lists strengths and weaknesses for selected studies related to wound management.

Which types of wound topics are covered in the table?

The table includes malignant fungating wounds, lower leg ulcers, and diabetic foot ulcers, with additional continuation content.

What recurring weaknesses are noted across the included studies?

Recurring weaknesses include limited language restrictions, unclear or missing search terms, limitations in eligibility assessment processes, restricted generalizability, and insufficient reporting of evidence levels or implementation details.

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Aldword