Table 2.
Quality assessment of included studies
| NO. | Study ID | EPHPP components | Overall rating | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection bias | Study design | Confouders | Blinding | Data collection | Withdrawals/droupouts | |||
| 1 | Prescott, et al. 2016 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 2 | He, et al. 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | Kangwantas, et al. 2017 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 4 | Gloudeman, et al. 2018 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 5 | Goh, et al. 2019 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 6 | Taglieri, et al. 2017 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 7 | Lockman, et al. 2017 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 8 | Koo, et al. 2016 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 9 | Munson, et al. 2015 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 10 | Wong, et al. 2014 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 11 | Bossaer, et al. 2016 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 12 | Cotta, et al. 2016 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 13 | McLaughlin, et al. 2014 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 14 | McLaughlin, et al. 2013 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 15 | Pierce, et al. 2012 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 16 | Stewart, et al. 2013 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 17 | Donihi, et al. 2014 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 18 | Sumanasekera, et al. 2020 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 19 | Nazar, et al. 2019 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 20 | Anderson, et al. 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | Chen, et al. 2020 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 22 | Wang, et al. 2019 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
EPHPP, The Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool; 1 = Strong methodological quality;2 = Moderate methodological quality;3 = Poor methodological quality