Table II.
List of criteria for the quality assessment of RCTs on the effectiveness of stage-based dietary interventions in primary care: modification of critical appraisal tool developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [28]
| Component section | Items and response choices | Example of component ratings: rated as weak ifa |
| Selection bias | 1. Were the providers/patients likely to be representative of the target population? (very likely/somewhat likely/not likely) 2. What percentage agreed to participate? (80–100%/60–79%/<60%/not reported/not applicable) |
1. Not likely or 2. Less than 60% or 1. Somewhat likely and 2. Not reported |
| Allocation bias | 1. Was the method of random allocation stated? (Yes/No) 2. If yes, was it appropriate? (Yes/No) 3. Was the method of random allocation reported as concealed? (Yes/No) |
1. No and 1. No and 1. No |
| Confounders | 1. Were there group differences for important confounders? (Yes/No/Cannot tell/Not applicable) ’Providers’: age, gender, attitudes toward counseling, counseling practices, postgraduate education in counseling ’Patients’: age, gender, BMI/weight/waist circumference, dietary behavior, readiness to change dietary habits 2. If yes, were they adequately managed in the analysis? (Yes/No/Not applicable) 3. Were there important confounders not reported? (Yes/No) |
1. Cannot tell or 1. Yes and 2. No and 3. Yes or 1. Yes and 2. No and 3. No or 1. No and 2. Not applicable and 3. Yes |
| Blinding | Were the outcome assessors blinded? (Yes/No/Not reported/Not applicable) | No or Not reported |
| Data collection methods | 1. Were data collection tools shown or were they known to be valid? (Yes/No) 2. Were data collection tools shown or were they known to be reliable? (Yes/No) |
1. No and 2. Yes or 1. No and 2. No |
| Withdrawals and dropouts | What was the percentage of participants completing the study? (80–100%/60–79%/<60%/Not reported/Not applicable) | Less than 60% or Not reported |
| Analysis | 1. Was there a sample size calculation or power calculation? (Yes/Partially/No) 2. Was there a statistically significant difference between the groups? (Yes/No/Not reported) 3. Were the statistical methods appropriate? (Yes/No/Not reported) 4. What was the allocation unit? (Community/Organization or institution/Group/Provider/Client) 5. What was the analytical unit? (same than previous) 6. If the above two were different, was cluster analysis performed? (Yes/No/Not applicable) 7. Was the analysis performed with an intention to treat? (Yes/No/Cannot tell) |
1. No and 2. Yes and 3. No and 4. + 5. Different unit and 6. No and 7. No |
| Intervention integrity | 1. What percentage of the providers/participants received the intervention? (80–100%/60–79%/<60%/Not reported/Not applicable) 2. Was the consistency of the intervention measured? (Yes/No/Not reported/Not applicable) 3. Was contamination likely? (Yes/No/Cannot tell) |
1. Less than 60% or Not reported and 2. No or Not reported and 3. Yes or Cannot tell |
| Total scorea | Weak, moderate, strong |
a
Based on the dictionary for this particular tool [29].