Table 2.
Author and year | Selection bias | Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data collection methods |
Withdrawals and dropouts |
EPHPP global rating |
Total score |
RCTs (n=7) | Of 18 | |||||||
Blank and Smithkline30 2002 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
Boden-Albala et al,34 2015 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
Dracup et al,15 2009 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
Luepker et al,31 2000 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
Meischke et al,32 1997 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | NA | 3 | 11/15 |
Mooney et al,10 2014 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Müller-Nordhorn et al,33 2009 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
Controlled before and after studies (n=3) | Of 12 | |||||||
Morgenstern et al,35 2002 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 6 |
Rowley et al,36 1982 | 3 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Xin-gang et al,37 2013 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Uncontrolled before and after studies /ITS (n=26) | Of 12 | |||||||
Addo et al,66 2012 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Alberts et al,59 1992 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Barsan et al,60 1994 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Bett et al,45 2004 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Bett et al,46 1993 | 2 | 2 | NA | 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Black and Brown,62 1973 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | 3 | NA | 9 |
Breuer et al,54 1999 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Camerlingo et al,64 2014 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Diercks et al,56 2010 | 2 | 2 | NA | 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Gaspoz et al,48 1996 | 2 | 2 | NA | 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Herlitz et al,55 1992 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Ho et al,1 1989 | 3 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | 3 | NA | 10 |
Hodgson et al,38 2007 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Luiz et al,49 2001 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Maeso-Madronero et al,52 2000 | 1 | 2 | NA | 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Mellon et al,40 2014 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Mitic and Perkins,57 1984 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Moses et al,67 1991 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Naegeli et al,63 2011 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Nishijima et al,65 2016 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Rau et al,53 2008 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Rustige et al,41 1992 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Thomassen et al,50 1999 | 3 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Waters et al,47 1983 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Wolters et al,51 2015 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
Wright et al,58 2001 | 1 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 8 |
Post-test only (n=2) | Of 12 | |||||||
Bray et al,44 2015 | 2 | 3 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 10 |
Månsson et al,43 1999 | 2 | 3 | NA | 3 | 3 | NA | NA | 11 |
Case–control study (n=1) | Of 12 | |||||||
Tummala and Farshid,42 2015 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 3 | NA | NA | 9 |
As the global rating, following EPHPP guidelines, could not be calculated for studies with non-randomised designs, we also calculated a sum total of the ratings across all dimensions that were applicable to the study design. This total score ranges from 6 to 18 if all six dimensions are applicable and from 4 to 12 if only four dimensions are applicable. Lower scores suggest better overall methodological quality and higher scores suggest poorer quality.
EPHPP, Effective Public Health Practice Project; ITS, interrupted time series; NA, not applicable; RCTs, randomised controlled trials.