Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 9;11(2):e0149024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149024

Table 5. Methodological quality of included studies based on Downs and Black** checklist (n = 35).

Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Quality Score Percentage (%)
Karu et al., (1995) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/24 46
Graupe et al, (2000) 1 1 0 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 0* 0* 1 0* N/A N/A 0 0 0* N/A 8/21 38
Griffin et al., (2002) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/24 46
Godfrey et al., (2002) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Eser et al., (2003) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/22 55
Thomas et al., (2003) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/24 46
Kebaetse et al., (2005) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Decker et al., (2010) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/22 55
del-Ama et al., (2012) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/24 50
Chang and Shields, (2011) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 10/24 42
Graham et al., (2006) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/24 50
Thrasher et al., (2005) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/22 55
Bickel et al., (2004) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 10/24 42
Scott et al., (2007) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Scott et al., (2005) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Deley et al., (2015) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/22 55
Gorgey et al., (2014) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 1 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 0 0 1 N/A 16/23 70
Chou et al., (2008) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Popovic and Malesevic, (2009) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 0* 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 9/22 41
Malešević et al., (2010) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 10/22 45
Nguyen et al., (2011) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 12/22 55
Sayenko et al., (2014) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/22 50
Downey et al., (2014) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N/A 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 13/24 54
Shields and Dudley-Javoroski (2006) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 11/23 48
Shields et al., (2006) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 1 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 1 N/A 14/23 61
Butler et al., (2004) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0 N/A 12/23 52
Gerrits et al., (2000) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 1 0* 0* 0 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 10/23 43
Gerrits et al., (2002) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 0 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0* N/A 10/23 43
Fornusek and Davis, (2004) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0 N/A 11/23 48
Hartkopp et al., (2003) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 1 N/A 13/23 57
Peckham et al., (1976) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0* 1 0* N/A N/A 0 0 0 N/A 10/22 45
Sabatier et al., (2006) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 1 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 0* N/A 0 0 0 0* N/A 12/23 52
Gorgey et al., (2015) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 0 0 0 1 N/A 1 1 1 0* N/A N/A 0 0 0* N/A 10/22 45
Shields et al., (2006) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0 N/A 11/23 48
Dudley-Javoroski et al., (2011) 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 1 0 0 0 0* 0* 1 0 0 1 N/A 1 0 1 0* N/A 1 0 0 0 N/A 11/23 48

Abbreviation: D&B criteria met = 1, D&B criteria not met = 0, Unable to determine = *0, i.e. scored 0, Criteria is not applicable to the study = N/A, Unable to determine = UTD.

The table presents the grading of included studies based on the D&B criteria 1 to 27.

Downs and Black**- Criteria are as summarised below

1-Hypothesis/aim stated, 2- Outcome described in introduction/ method, 3- Participants’ characteristics described, 4- Intervention described, 5- Distribution of principal confounders described, 6- Findings described, 7- Data distribution, 8- Description of adverse events, 9- Characteristics of participants’ lost to follow-up described, 10- Exact p-value reported, 11- Participants’ sources described, 12- Participants’ selection described, 13- Appropriateness of the experimental facility, 14- Blinding of the participants to the intervention, 15- Blinding of the examiner, 16- “Data dredging”, 17- Analysis adjustment to different length of follow-up, 18- Appropriate statistics used to measure outcomes, 19- Adherence to the intervention, 20- Accuracy of outcome measures, 21- Source of participant for comparison groups, 22- Time period of participants’ recruitment, 23- Participants’ randomisation, 24- Randomised intervention assignment, 25- Adjustment for confounders during analysis, 26- Consideration to loss to follow-up, 27- Statistical power of the outcome of the study.

Criterion 5 has a maximum of 2 points while others have a maximum of 1 point each. Points were awarded only when the criteria were clearly described.