Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [32] results evaluating quality of included studies (n = 20)

From: Evaluating antenatal breastmilk expression outcomes: a scoping review

Author (year of publication) Screening questions (number of ‘yes’) MMAT study design Methodological quality questions (number of ‘yes’)
Blaikley et al. (1953) [44] 1/2 Quantitative non-randomized 2/5
Brisbane et al. (2015) [34] 2/2 Qualitative study 3/5
Brown et al. (1975) [47] 1/2 Quantitative randomized control trial 2/5
Casey et al. (2019) [36] 2/2 Quantitative non-randomized 2/5
Casey et al. (2019) [35] 2/2 Qualitative study 5/5
Clay (2005) [43] 0/2 Qualitative study 0/5
Demirci et al. (2018) [38] 1/2 Quantitative descriptive 4/5
Demirci et al. (2019) [37] 2/2 Qualitative study 5/5
Fair et al. (2018) [39] 2/2 Qualitative study 3/5
Forster et al. (2011) [13] 1/2 Quantitative non-randomized 2/5
Forster et al. (2017) [21] 2/2 Quantitative randomized control trial 3/5
Ingelman-Sundberg (1958) [46] 0/2 Quantitative non-randomized 0/5
Lamba et al. (2016) [40] 2/2 Quantitative randomized controlled trial 1/5
O’Sullivan et al. (2019) [24] 2/2 Qualitative study 2/5
Rietveld (2011) [42] 2/2 Mixed methods 2/5
Singh et al. (2009) [16] 2/2 Quantitative randomized control trial 1/5
Soltani et al. (2012) [20] 2/2 Quantitative non-randomized 3/5
Uikey et al. (2017) [41] 2/2 Quantitative randomized controlled trial 1/5
Waller (1946) [45] 1/2 Quantitative non-randomized 1/5
Weinel et al. (2019) [33] 0/2 Quantitative descriptive 1/5
\