Table 2.

Methodological Quality by Study

Study	Concealed Randomization*	N†	Follow-up‡	Attrition Follow-up§	Masking||	Group Comparability¶	Intervention vs. Control#
Skinner et al.2	2	0	2	1	0	2	1
Slater et al.3	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
Mishra et al.12	2	0	1	1	2	2	1
Navarro et al.13	1	0	1	1	0	2	0
Weber and Reilly14	2	1	1	1	1	2	1
Skaer et al.4	2	0	2	2	0	2	1
Burack et al.15	0	1	2	1	0	2	1
Fletcher et al.5	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Rimer et al.6	2	0	2	1	0	0	1
Crane et al.19	2	0	1	1	0	2	1
Newell et al.22	2	0	1	0	0	2	1
Reuben et al.7	0	1	2	1	1	1	1
Zhu et al.8	2	0	2	1	0	1	1
Champion9,10	2	0	2	1	0	Unclear	1
Calle and Miracle-McMahill20	0	0	1	1	1	2	1
Segura et al.11	1	1	1	1	0	2	1
Fox et al.23	1	0	1	1	0	2	1
Simon et al.24	2	1	2	1	0	1	1
Clover et al.16	1	0	1	2	0	2	1
Skinner et al.25	1	0	2	1	0	2	1
Champion et al.17	2	0	2	0	0	2	1
Lauver et al.18	1	1	2	1	0	2	1
Segnan et al.26	2	0	N/A	0	0	2	1
Schneider et al.21	0	0	1	0	0	2	1

^*Was randomization of the participants concealed? 0 = not concealed; 1 = concealed; 2 = unclear.

^§Was a calculation of sample size undertaken? 0 = no/not mentioned; 1 = yes.

^‡Was relatively complete follow-up achieved (≥80%)? 1 = <80%; 2 = ≥80%.

^§Were the outcomes of the people who withdrew described and included in the analysis? 0 = not mentioned; 1 = states numbers and reasons for withdrawal but analysis unmodified; 2 = primary analysis based on all recruited cases.

^||Were those assessing outcomes masked to the treatment allocation? 0 = not mentioned/not done; 1 = action taken to blind assessors or outcomes so that bias was unlikely.

^¶Were the control and treatment groups comparable at entry? 0 = large potential for confounding or not discussed; 1 = confounding small-mentioned but not adjusted for; 2 = unconfounded study—good comparability of groups or confounding adjusted for.

^#Were the groups treated identifcally other than for the named interventions? 0 = no/not mentioned; 1 = yes.