Skip to main content
. 2019 Feb 27;6(1):e000975. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000975

Table 2.

Methodological quality ratings for included studies (n=39)

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.