Table 4.
Summary of study quality.
| Quality criteria | Cha et al. (2018) | Kramer et al. (2015) | Peters et al. (2015) | Scocco et al. (2019) | Supiano et al. (2017) | Visser et al. (2014) | Wittouck et al. (2014) | Zisook et al. (2018) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Selection bias | ||||||||
| Representativeness | Somewhat likely | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely | Not likely |
| Percentage agreed | Can't tell | Can't tell | <60% | Can't tell | Can't tell | <60% | 80–100% | Can't tell |
| Rating | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak |
| B. Study design | ||||||||
| Study design type | Cohort | Cohort | Other | Cohort | Other | Other | RCT | RCT |
| Described as randomized? | No | No | No | No | N.a. | No | Yes | Yes |
| Method of randomization described? | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | Yes | Yes |
| Method appropriate? | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | Yes | Yes |
| Rating | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Strong |
| C. Confounders | ||||||||
| Pre-intervention differences? | Yes | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Percentage confounders controlled for | <60% (few or none) | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | <60% (few or none) | 80–100% | <60% (few or none) |
| Rating | Weak | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | N.a. | Weak | Strong | Weak |
| D. Blinding | ||||||||
| Outcome assessors were blinded? | No | No | No | No | Can't tell | No | No | Yes |
| Participants were blinded? | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Yes |
| Rating | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Strong |
| E. Data collection methods | ||||||||
| Valid measures? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Reliable measures? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Rating | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| F. Withdrawals and dropouts | ||||||||
| Numbers and reasons reported per group? | No | No | N.a. | No | Yes | N.a. | Yes | No |
| Percentage completing study? | 80–100% | <60% | N.a. | 80–100% | 80–100% | N.a. | 80–100% | <60% |
| Rating | Weak | Weak | N.a. | Weak | Strong | N.a. | Strong | Weak |
| Total A-F: | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK | WEAK |
| Number of “strong” ratings | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 4/6 | 3/6 |
| G. Intervention integrity | ||||||||
| Percentage participants received intervention? | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 80–100% | 60–79% |
| Intervention consistency measured? | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Yes | Can' tell | Can't tell | Yes |
| Confounding unintended intervention? | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell | Can't tell |
| H. Analyses | ||||||||
| Unit of allocation | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual |
| Unit of analysis | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual | Individual |
| Appropriate statistical methods? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Analysis by intention-to-treat status | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Can't tell |