Table 3.
Methodological Quality of Studies Included in the Review
| Author (Year) | Reportinga | External Validityb | Biasc | Confoundingd | Powere | Quality Score | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastos et al. (2007) | 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 14 | Good |
| Cazanave et al. (2008) | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 13 | Fair |
| Gomes et al. (2014) | 8 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 12 | Fair |
| Pinto Neto et al. (2011) | 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 14 | Good |
| Yin et al. (2005) | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 15 | Good |
| Jacobson et al. (2008) a | 7 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 12 | Fair |
| Li Vecchi et al. (2012) a | 7 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 11 | Fair |
| Sharma et al. (2011) | 8 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 16 | Good |
| Yin et al. (2010) | 9 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 17 | Good |
| Yin et al. (2012) | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 14 | Good |
Note. Methodological quality was assessed using a checklist by Downs and Black (1998). Each criterion was scored from 0 to 1 (0 = no, 1 = yes, n/a = not applicable), with the exception of confounding and power, which were scored from 0 to 2. Ratings were as follows: excellent (18-20), good (14-17) fair (10-13), poor (<10).
Reporting: how well study aims and procedures are reported in the paper.
External validity: generalizability to study findings to the population from which the study subjects were derived.
Bias: examines biases in measurement of the intervention and the outcome.
Confounding: assesses selection bias and comparability of groups.
Power: whether a power analysis was conducted.