Table 8. Quality criteria for intervention/observational studies.

#	Criterion description	Issues considered
1.	Clear study description	•  Did the authors provide a clear description of the dietary status/ change evaluated? •  Did the authors provide a clear description of the health impacts evaluated? •  Was the link with climate change mitigation and/or other environmental impacts well described? •  Did the authors give a clear justification of study in a particular area – including a description of current/baseline and ‘more sustainable’ diets?
2.	Appropriate comparison group/situation	•  Were the health impacts of more sustainable diets compared to an appropriate and comparable baseline group/situation? •  Were inclusion/exclusion criteria of the participants clearly defined?
3.	Realistic exposure levels	•  Were proposed dietary changes realistic in a specific time frame for the described context (i.e. the exposure is sufficient to develop an exposure-response estimate and there is appropriate temporality between exposure and outcome)?
4.	Clear methods description	•  Did the authors clearly describe the methods used to characterize and evaluate both ‘current/ baseline’ and ‘more sustainable’ diets? •  Were the methods applied to measure health and environmental impacts of evaluated diets clearly described?
5.	Rigorous and clearly described analysis	•  Are sufficient data presented to support the findings? •  Were analyses described in detail? •  Did the researchers critically examine their potential bias and influence during measurement, analysis and selection of data for presentation?
6.	Precision of measure of effect	•  How sure are we about the (causal) effect of the exposure? (using Bradford Hill) •  What are the confidence limits? •  Were the observed associations statistically significant?