Table 4.

Support for judgment of risk of bias per item and study. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment.

Author, year	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of outcome assessment
Brannon et al, 2017 [48]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Chen et al, 2017 [49]	Low; Randomization using computer program	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Dewar et al, 2013 [50]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	High; At baseline only. Outcomes likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Dewar et al, 2014 [51]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Ermetici et al, 2016 [52]	High; No randomization	High; No randomization	Unclear; Not enough information
Lana et al, 2014 [60]	Low; Randomization using computer program	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Lau et al, 2012 [53]	High; No randomization	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Lubans et al, 2012 [54]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	High; At baseline only. Outcomes likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Mendoza et al, 2017 [55]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	High; Unblinded RCTa
Newton et al, 2009 [56]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	Low; Assessors blinded at follow-up
Patrick et al, 2013 [57]	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information	Unclear; Not enough information
Sirriyeh et al, 2010 [58]	Low; Randomization using random number generator	Unclear; Not enough information	Low; Assessors blinded at follow-up
Straker et al, 2014 [59]	High; Within-subject waitlist study design	High; Within-subject waitlist study design	High; Outcomes likely to be influenced by lack of blinding

^aRCT: randomized controlled trial.