Skip to main content
. 2014 Mar 14;3:8. doi: 10.1186/2047-1440-3-8

Table 1.

Summary of quality assessment for the studies included

 
 Population
 Intervention
 Assessment tool(s) a
Analysis
Papers Randomization Justification of sample size Control group Allocation concealment Underlying theory Validity Reliability Intention-to-treat Attrition rate
Alonso, Fernandez, Mataix et al. (1999)
 No
 Not mentioned
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Beasley, Capossela, Brigham, Gunderson and Gortmaker (1997)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Bleakley (2010)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Dettle, Sagel and Chrysler (1994)
 No
 No
 Yes (but no statistical comparison between groups)
 Not mentioned
 None
 Not mentioned
 Not mentioned
 no
 40% attrition;
No analysis of dropouts
Kittur, McMenamin and Knott (1990)
 No
 No
 Yes
 Not randomly assigned
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Light (1987)
 No
 No
 Yes (but no statistical comparison between groups)
 Not randomly assigned
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Milanés, Gonzalez, Hernandez, Arminio, Clesca and Rivas-Vetencourt (2003)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Nelson, Marymont, Durand, Reyes and Davis (1992)
 Random cluster probability method
 No
 Yes
 Not randomly assigned
 None
 Field testing of the questionnaire (but validity/reliability assessment not detailed)
 N/A
 N/A
Niday, Painter, Peak et al. (2007)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Riker and White (1995)
 No
 No
 Yes
 Not randomly assigned
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Shafer, Durand, Hueneke, et al. (1998)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Stark, Wikoren and Martone (1994)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Taylor, Young and Kneteman (1997)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 ‘Change theory’ (not referenced)
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Van Gelder, Van Hees, de Roey, Monbaliu, Aerts, Coosemans et al. (2006)
 No
 No
 No
 N/A
 None
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
Wight, Cohen, Roels and Miranda (2000) No No No N/A None N/A N/A N/A N/A

aThe assessment tools assessed were only those regarding outcomes assessed in this systematic review, that is, professional practices or donation rates; when the outcome was an objective measure (donation rate or any quantitative item retrieved from medical records review), validity and reliability were considered nonapplicable.

N/A, not applicable.