Table 4.

Quality assessment attributes for each quantitative study included in the current systematic review, assessed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Quality Criteria Checklist^{( 28 )}

	Study details, country	Clear research question	Participant selection free from bias	Comparable study groups	Participant withdrawals or response rate described	Use of blinding	Description of intervention protocol and/or data collection procedures	Outcomes clearly defined	Appropriate statistical analysis	Conclusion supported by results	Unlikely funding bias	Overall score
1	Dewhurst and Pendergast (2011)( 31 ), Australia	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/7
2	Dewhurst and Pendergast (2008)( 32 ), Australia	+	+	+	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/8
3	Gracey et al. (1996)( 33 ), Australia	+	+	N/A	−	N/A	+	+	+	+	+	7/8
4	Jaenke et al. (2012)( 34 ), Australia	+	+	+	NR	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/8
5	Morgan et al. (2010)( 35 ), Australia	+	+	+	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/8
6	Pendergast and Dewhurst (2012)( 36 ), Australia	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/7
7	Ronto et al. (2016)( 37 ), Australia	+	N/A	N/A	NR	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	5/6
8	Ronto et al. (2016)( 38 ), Australia	+	+	N/A	N/A	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	6/6
9	Ronto et al. (2016)( 39 ), Australia	+	+	N/A	NR	N/A	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	5/6
10	Slater (2013)( 40 ), Canada	+	+	N/A	NR	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	6/7
11	Zhou et al. (2016)( 41 ), China	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
12	Turnin et al. (2016)( 42 ), France	+	+	+	NR	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/9
13	Petralias et al. (2016)( 42 ), Greece	+	+	+	NR	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/8
14	Tsartsali et al. (2009)( 44 ), Greece	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	7/8
15	Mirmiran et al. (2007)( 45 ), Iran	+	−	N/A	−	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	5/8
16	Venter and Winterbach (2010)( 46 ), South Africa	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	7/8
17	Gewa et al. (2013)( 48 ), Kenya	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
18	Klepp and Wilhelmsen (1993)( 49 ), Norway	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
19	Øverby et al. (2012)( 50 ), Norway	+	+	+	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/8
20	da Rocha Leal et al. (2011)( 51 ), Portugal	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	+	8/8
21	Osler and Hansen (1993)( 52 ), Denmark	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	+	8/8
22	Chapman et al. (1997)( 56 ), USA	+	+	+	−	−	+	+	+	+	NR	7/10
23	Evans et al. (2012)( 57 ), USA	+	+	+	NR	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/9
24	Gans et al. (1990)( 58 ), USA	+	+	+	NR	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/8
25	Huang et al. (2004)( 59 ), USA	+	−	N/A	−	N/A	−	+	+	+	NR	4/7
26	Jarpe-Ratner et al. (2016)( 60 ), USA	+	+	+	N/R	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	7/8
27	Larson et al. (2006)( 61 ), USA	+	+	N/A	−	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	6/7
28	Laska et al. (2012)( 62 ), USA	+	+	N/A	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	7/8
29	Long and Stevens (2004)( 63 ), USA	+	+	+	+	NR	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/9
30	McAleese and Fada (2007)( 64 ), USA	+	+	+	+	N/A	+	+	+	+	N/A	8/8
31	Miller (2014)( 65 ), USA	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
32	Pirouznia (2001)( 66 ), USA	+	+	N/A	−	N/A	+	+	+	+	NR	6/8
33	Ratcliffe et al. (2011)( 67 ), USA	+	N/A	+	NR	NR	+	+	+	+	NR	6/8
34	Schober et al. (2016)( 68 ), USA	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
35	Trexler and Sargent (1993)( 69 ), USA	+	+	N/A	−	N/A	+	+	+	+	+	7/8
36	Williams et al. (2016)( 70 ), USA	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	N/A	9/9
37	Caraher et al. (2013)( 71 ), UK	+	+	N/A	+	−	+	+	+	+	+	8/9

N/A, not applicable (due to study design); +, positive overall score; NR, not reported; −, negative overall score (this score is given if criterion is not met).