Table 2.
Study quality
| Type | Author, Year | Sampling | Comparison Group | Randomized | Comparability | Outcome Follow-Up | Outcome Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | Dziadzko et al, 201626 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Subjective |
| Pickering et al, 201537 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Hoskote et al, 201727 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Olchanski et al, 201728 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Kheterpal et al, 201829 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Jiang et al, 201730 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Multipatient | Shaw et al, 201520 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective |
| Pageler et al, 201425 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Lipton et al, 201121 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Zaydfudim et al, 200923 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Bourdeaux et al, 201631 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Cox et al, 201832 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Fletcher et al, 201840 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Physiologic and laboratory monitoring | Giuliano et al, 201224 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective |
| Sondergaard et al, 201233 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Objective | |
| Kennedy et al, 201039 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Objective | |
| Kennedy et al, 200438 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Objective | |
| Kirkness et al, 200835 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Kirkness et al, 200634 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Subjective | |
| Bansal et al, 200119 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective | |
| Expert system | Semler et al, 201536 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Objective |
| Evans et al, 199522 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Objective |
Note: Studies were ranked 0 (poor) or 1 (high) for sampling (1 = representative), comparison group (1 = same community), randomization (1 = randomized), comparability (1 = matched cohorts, baseline data, or concealed allocation), and follow-up (1 = ¾ or more participants provided data). Studies were also classified as subjective or objective assessments.