Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 13;17(6):1884. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061884

Table A1.

Manuscripts quality assessment.

Studies Objetive Design Method Subjects Random Blinding Investigators Blinding Subjetcs Meausure Outcome Sample Size Analytic Methods Variance Controlled for Confounding Results Conclusions Quality Score %
Mallo & Navarro 2008 [14] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Olthof et al. 2018 [30] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.95
Almeida et al. 2016 [31] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Castellano et al. 2017 [32] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Machado et al. 2016 [33] 1 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.80
Silva, Duarte et al. 2014 [34] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Sánchez-Sánchez et al. 2017 [35] 2 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Serra-Olivares et al. 2015 [36] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 1 N/A 2 2 0.75
Serra-Olivares et al. 2015 [37] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.75
Díaz-Cidoncha et al. 2014 [38] 1 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 1 N/A 2 2 0.80
Castelao et al. 2014 [39] 2 2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.75
Silva, Garganta et al. [40] 2014 2 2 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.75
Abrantes et al. 2012 [41] 2 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Casamichana & Castellano 2010 [42] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Evangelos et al. 2012 [43] 2 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Da Silva et al. 2011 [44] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Katis & Kellis 2009 [45] 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.92
Kelly & Drust [46] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Jones & Drust 2007 [47] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Almeida et al. 2012 [48] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Rebelo et al. 2011 [49] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Serra-Olivares et al. 2017 [50] 1 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.80
Owen et al. 2004 [51] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 1 1 N/A 2 1 0.72
Machado et al, [52] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 NA 2 2 0.90
Moreira et al. [53] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Práxedes et al. [54] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 NA 2 2 0.85
Sousa et al. [55] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Clemente et al. [56] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 1 N/A 2 2 0.80
Folgado et al. [57] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 NA 2 2 0.85
Machado et al. [58] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 NA 2 2 0.85
Clemente et al. 2016 [59] 2 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Conte et al. 2016 [60] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Klusemann et al. 2012 [61] 2 2 0 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Conte et al. 2015 [62] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Bredt et al. [63] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Timmerman et al. 2017 [64] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Timmerman et al. [65] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Clemente y Rocha 2012 [66] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 1 N/A 2 2 0.85
Gabbett et al. 2012 [67] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.80
Serra-Olivares et al. 2011 [68] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 2 2 0.70
Barnabé et al. 2016 [69] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Christopher et al. 2016 [70] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
Falces-Prieto et al. 2015 [71] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
Olthof et al. 2015 [72] 2 2 1 2 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.90
González-Víllora et al. 2013 [73] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 0 N/A 2 2 0.75
Folgado et al. 2012 [74] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 2 0.85
González-Víllora et al. 2010 [75] 2 2 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 0 N/A 2 2 0.75

1 = Question/objective sufficiently described? 2 = Study design evident and appropriate?; 3 = Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate?; 4 = Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described?; 5 If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described?; 6 = If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported?; 7 = If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported?; 8 = Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to measurement / misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported?; 9 = Sample size appropriate?; 10 = Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate?; 11 Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?; 12 = Controlled for confounding?; 13= Results reported in sufficient detail?; 14 = Conclusions supported by the results?