Table 3.
Methodological quality assessment of the 28 included studies
| Criterion | Yes | No | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Study design capable of demonstrating temporality | 2 (7.1) | 26 (92.9) | 92.9% were cross-sectional in design |
| Adequate sample size (n ≥ 100) | 21 (75) | 7 (25) | Small sample sizes used by 25% of the studies |
| Study participants randomly sampled | 16 (57.1) | 12 (42.9) | Over 40% of the studies were not immune to sampling bias |
| Analytical rigor | 28 (100) | 0 (0) | Statistical analysis appropriate |
| Multi-center study | 28 (100) | 0 (0) | At least three food premises studied |
| Used piloted and valid data collection instruments | 23 (82.1) | 5 (17.9) | Validated data collection instruments used |
| Described or tested reliability of data collection instruments | 23 (82.1) | 5 (17.9) | Most studies used reliable data collection instruments |
| Peer-review | 28 (100) | 0 (0) | All articles were published in peer-reviewed journals |
| Observed the food handling practices | 9 (32.1) | 19 (67.8) | Self-reports of food handlers commonly used |
| Acknowledged the study limitations or biases | 16 (57.1) | 12 (42.9) | Study limitations not provided in over 40% of the studies |
| Provides evidence-supported conclusions and/or recommendations | 28 (100) | 0 (0) | Conclusions supported by results |
| Provided evidence of ethics approval | 19 (67.9) | 9 (32.1) | Ethics approval evidence missing in over 32% of the studies |