Table 2.
Quality assessment of study design for 12 randomized clinical trials (rigor scores*).
| Publication | Cohort (a) | With control group (b) | Pre/post intervention (c) | Random assignment (d) | Random selection for assessment (e) | Sample size >100 (f) | Follow-up ≥80% (g) | Comparable socio-demographics between study groups (h) | Comparable outcome measures at baseline (i) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kelly et al. [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Kalichman et al.[37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Margolin et al. [23] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Sorensen et al. [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Purcell et al. [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Gilbert et al. [24] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Williams et al. [40] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Coleman et al. [41] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Rose et al. [8] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Teti et al. [22] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Wolitski et al. [9] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Kalichman et al. [20] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
*
One point score for meeting each of the following items: (a) was a prospective cohort, (b) used a comparison arm, (c) collected pre and post intervention data, (d) used random assignment of participants to study arms, (e) did random sampling for assessments, (f) sample size > 100, (g) follow-up rate ≥ 80%, (h) had a comparison group with comparable socio-demographics such as age, education, race, employment, income, marital status and others [score “1” if > 50% variables were comparable between study arms, and ‘0’ if not], and (i) had a comparison arm with comparable outcome measures at baseline between study arms.