Table 2.
Quality assessment of included studies using the Quality of Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) tool [37]
| Calderon et al. [18] | Childress et al. [24] | Davis & Lambert [25] | French et al. [46] | Kilpatrick et al. [19] | Koff & Rierdan [45] | Krowchuk et al. [23] | McVey et al. [20] | Page et al. [49] | Phelps et al. [40] | Rafiroiu et al. [43] | Serdula et al. [39] | Shisslak et al. [48] | Shisslak et al. [44] | Stevens et al. [41] | Story et al. [47] | Story et al. [21] | Yost et al. [38] | Zullig et al. [42] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were the aims/objectives of the study clear? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)? | Y | N/Aa | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Was the sample size justified? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 4. Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 5. Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 6. Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation? | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 7. Were measures undertaken to address and categorize non-responders? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 8. Were the weight intentions and weight strategies measured appropriate to the aims of the study? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Were the weight intentions and weight strategies measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted or published previously? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y |
| 10. Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (eg, p values, CIs) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| 11. Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 12. Were the basic data adequately described? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 13. Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? | N | Y | N/A | N | N | N/A | N | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | N |
| 14. If appropriate, was information about non-responders described? | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 15. Were the results internally consistent? (whether the numbers added up’, and ‘whether missing numbers were acknowledged or described’) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 16. Were the results for the analyses described in the methods, presented? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 17. Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 18. Were the limitations of the study discussed? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 19. Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors’ interpretation of the results? | N/A | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N | N/A | N/A | N | N/A | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N/A |
| 20. Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained? | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | Y | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y |
Note: aN/A, information not available in article. For question 10, if the significance level for statistical tests was not provided, the item was graded as a ‘no’. For question 7, quality was assessed based on attempts to provide a rationale for response rates. For question 14, quality was assessed based on attempts to describe the non-responders relative to the responders. For question 16, if no analyses were proposed in the methods (i.e., prevalence and proportions proposed only), quality for presentation of results was deemed as N/A