Table 3.

Summary of quality assessment (a synthesis of CASP/MMAT checklists + Risk of Bias)

Study	Clear research question?	Collected data address the research question?	Appropriate research design?	Recruitment strategy appropriate?	Measurements appropriate?	Outcome accurately measured?	Clear statement of findings?	Appropriate consideration given to limitations?	Risk of Bias (ROBINS-I)	Quality of evidence: overall rating
Barnes et al. (2006)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Cannot tell	Moderate risk of bias	Good quality
Barnett et al. (2015)	Yes	Cannot tell	No	Cannot tell	Yes	Cannot tell	Yes	No	Serious risk of bias	Acceptable–poor quality
Curran et al. (2012)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Yes	Moderate risk	Acceptable quality
Furness et al. (2011)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Cannot tell	Serious risk of bias	Acceptable quality
Kinnair et al. (2012)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Cannot tell	Yes	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Yes	Moderate risk of bias	Acceptable quality
Priest et al. (2008)	Yes	Cannot tell	Yes	Cannot tell	Yes	Cannot tell	Yes	Yes	Moderate or serious risk of bias	Acceptable quality
Reeves et al. (2006)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Moderate risk of bias	Acceptable quality
Rolls et al. (2002)	Yes	Cannot tell	No	Cannot tell	Yes	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Cannot tell	Critical risk of bias	Poor quality

CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Program; MMAT, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; ROBINS–I, Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions