Table 8.
Clinical trials assessment measure (2004), assessment for randomized controlled trials, and feasibility studies.
| Author and year | Total CTAMa(max 100) | Sample (Q1,Q2) (max 10) |
Allocation (Q3,Q4,Q5) (max 16) |
Assessment (Q6,Q7,Q8,Q9,Q10) (max 32) |
Control (Q11) (max 16) |
Analysis (Q12,Q13) (max 15) |
Treatment description (Q14,Q15) (max 11) |
| Gleeson et al, 2014b[37] | 44 | 2,0= 2 | 0 | 10,6,0,0,0= 16 | 0 | 5,6,4= 15 | 3,3,5= 11 |
| Ben-Zeev et al, 2014b[3] | 36 | 2,0=2 | 0 | 10,6,0,0,0= 16 | 0 | 5,6,4= 15 | 3,0,0,= 3 |
| Ben-Zeev et al, 2014b[38] | 44 | 2,5=7 | 0 | 10,6,0,0,0= 16 | 0 | 5,6,4= 15 | 3,3,0= 6 |
| Nahum et al, 2014b[36] | 44 |
2,0= 2 |
0 | 10,6,0,0,0=16 | 0 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,5=11 |
| Palmier-Claus et al, 2013b[39] | 39 | 2,0=2 | 0 | 10,6,0,0,0,=16 | 0 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,0=6 |
| Palmier-Claus et al, 2013 [29] | 62 | 2,0=2 | 10,3,0=13 | 10,6,0,0,0=16 | 10 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,0,3=6 |
| Van der Krieke et al, 2013 [31] | 78 | 2,5=7 | 10,3,0=13 | 10,6,10,0,0=26 | 6 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,5=11 |
| Ventura et al, 2013b[5] | 44 | 2,0=2 | 0 | 10,6,0,0,0=16 | 0 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,5=11 |
| Kurtz et al, 2015 [32] | 88 | 2,5=7 | 10,0,3=13 | 10,6,10,3,3=32 | 10 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,5=11 |
| Smith et al, 2015 [33] | 79 | 2,0=2 | 10,3,0=13 | 10,6,10,3,3=32 | 6 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,5=11 |
| Beebe et al, 2014 [34] |
75 | 2,0=2 | 10,3,0=13 | 10,6,10,3,0=29 | 10 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,0=6 |
| Mortiz et al, 2016 [35] | 82 | 5,5=10 | 10,3,3=16 | 10,6,10,3,0=29 | 6 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,0=6 |
| Schlosser et al, 2016b[40] | 62 | 2,0=2 | 10,0,0=10 | 10,3,10,0,0=23 | 6 | 5,6,4=15 | 3,3,0=6 |
aCTAM: clinical trials assessment measure.
bThe study is designed as a feasibility or acceptability trial. For ratings of treatment description: Q14 score 3 if website or mobile interface adequately described; for ratings of handling of dropouts, if dropouts described and reasonably analyzed score of 4 given.