Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 27;8:371. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00371

Table 1.

Quality assessment of reviewed studies (using the EPHPP) N = 17.

Study (primary author) Selection bias Study design Confounders Blinding Data collection methods Withdrawals and drop-outs Global rating
Calvo et al., 2014 M S S M S S Strong
Calvo et al., 2015 M S S M S S Strong
Chien et al., 2016a S S S M S S Strong
Chien et al., 2016b S S S M S S Strong
Goldstein et al., 1978 S S S M S S Strong
Linszen et al., 1996 S S S M S S Strong
McCann et al., 2013 M S S M S S Strong
Miklowitz et al., 2014 M S S M S M Strong
Browning et al., 2013 S S S W S S Moderate
Cozolino et al., 1988 S S S W S S Moderate
De Giacomo et al., 1997 M S W M S M Moderate
Leavey et al., 2004 W S S M S M Moderate
O'Brien et al., 2014 M S S M W M Moderate
Rossberg et al., 2010 W M M M M M Moderate
Zhang et al., 1994 M S W M S S Moderate
Gleeson et al., 2010 M S W M S W Weak
Rund et al., 1994 M M S W W S Weak

S, strong; M, moderate; W, weak. Global Rating is calculated using information across all six domains: strong (no weak ratings), moderate (one weak rating), or weak (two or more weak ratings).