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).