Table 5.
Quality assessment of social media for smoking cessation studies
| Quality Criteria |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (year) |
Recruitment | Participation Rate |
Detailed description of baseline sample |
Numbers at follow-up reported (e.g., CONSORT diagram included) |
Follow-up duration (min 2- months) |
Response rate at last follow-up ≥75% |
Not selective non- response |
Measure of self- reported smoking outcomes |
Use objective/ biochemical smoking outcomes |
Statistical model is appropriate |
Number of cases 10 times number of independent variables |
Presentation of confidence intervals, standard error or effect size |
Quality Score (%) |
| Bakersville et al (2016)25 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 67% |
| Cheung et al (2015)27 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 83% |
| Cobb et al (2016)28
[Study protocol: Cobb et al (2014)35] |
Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | 67% |
| Haines-Saah et al (2015)26 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 50% |
| Pechmann et al (2015)29 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 83% |
| Pechmann et al (2016)30
[Secondary outcomes: |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 92% |
| Lakon et al (2016)32] | |||||||||||||
| Ramo et al (2015)31
[Secondary outcomes: Ramo et al (2014)33 and T hrul et al (2015)34] |
Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 92% |