. 2019 Jun 27;16(13):2280. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132280

Table A2.

Detailed quality assessment of included studies.

Study	Ethics Approval	Criteria
Study	Ethics Approval	1 ^a	2 ^a	3 ^a	4 ^a	8 ^a	9 ^a	10 ^a	11 ^a	12 ^a	13 ^a	14 ^a	Overall Score ^b	Average Score ^c
Aguado-Gracia et al. 2018	?	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	19	0.86
Chan et al. 2018	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	22	1.00
Greger et al. 2015	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	22	1.00
Paul et al. 2018	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	1	1	1	18	0.82
Pfeffer 2016	2	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	1	1	1	17	0.77
Turner et al. 2011	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	22	1.00

^a 0=No, 1=Partial, 2=Yes & ?=Unclear; ^b range 0–22; ^c range 0–1; Criterion 1: Sufficiently described objective?; Criterion 2: Study design evident & appropriate?; Criterion 3: Method of subject selection or source of information/ input variables described & appropriate?; Criterion 4: Subject characteristics sufficiently described?; Criterion 8: Outcome & exposure measures well defined & robust to measurement/ misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported?; Criterion 9: Sample size appropriate?; Criterion 10: Analytic methods described/ justified & appropriate?; Criterion 11: Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?; Criterion 12: Controlled for confounding?; Criterion 13: Results reported in sufficient detail?; Criterion 14: Conclusions supported by the results?