Table 2.
Summary of methodological quality of included studies
| MMATa criteria | Screening questions | Quantitative/ control group | Quantitative non-randomized | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Clear research questions or objectives? | Do collected data address the research questions/objective? | 2.1 Clear description of randomization? | 2.2 Clear description of allocation concealment (or blinding)? | 2.3 Complete outcome data (≥80%)? | 2.4 Low withdrawal/drop-out (< 20%)? | 3.1 Participants/organizations recruitment - minimizes selection bias? | 3.2 Appropriate measurements used for intervention & outcomes? | 3.3 Participants/organizations comparable, or are differences accounted for? | 3.4 Complete outcome data (80% or above) or acceptable follow-up rate? | |
| Aboulfalah 2001 (PC) [30] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Al-Shaikh 2013 (PC) [31] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Blanco 1992 (PC) [32] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Cieminski 2015 (RC) | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Cunha 1999 (PC) [34] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Flamm 1987 (PC) [36] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Flamm 1997 (PC) [35] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Geetha 2012 (PC) []37 | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Goldman 1998 (PC) [38] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Grobman 2007 (PC) | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Grubb 1996 (RCT) [40] | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Horenstein 1984 (RC) [42] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Horenstein 1985 (PC) [41] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Kehl 2016 (PC) [43] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Lao 1987 (RC) [44] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Lelaidier 1994 (RCT) [45] | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Manish 2016 (RCT) [46] | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Ogbonmwan 2010 (RC) [47] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Palatnik 2015 (RC) [48] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Ramya 2015 (RCT) [49] | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Rayburn 1999 (RCT) [50] | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰✰ 100% |
| Sakala 1990a (RC) [51] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Sakala 1990b (RC) [52] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Shah 2017 (RC) [53] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Shatz 2013 (RC) [54] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Sims 2001 (RC) [55] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | – | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Taylor 1993 (RCT) [56] | ✰ | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰✰✰ 75% |
| Tussupkaliyer 2016 (PC) [57] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰ 50% |
| Yogev 2004 (RC) [58] | ✰ | ✰ | NA | NA | NA | NA | ✰ | – | ✰ | ✰ | ✰✰✰ 75% |
PC prospective cohort, RC retrospective cohort, RCT randomized controlled trial, NA not applicable
a Assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, Version 2011
✝Total score is out of 4 stars (✰✰✰✰) for controlled randomized quantitative studies (2.1 to 2.4) and quantitative non-randomized studies (3.1 to 3.4), whereby each assessment criterion met by a study was awarded a star (✰), and a criterion not met by a study was marked with a dash (−);