Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 8;8(4):e15446. doi: 10.2196/15446

Table 2.

Characteristics and design quality of included reviews.

Review and included studies Participants, n (% male) Sa (% male);
TCb, (% male)
Age (years);
median (IQR),
mean (SD), or range
Design Evidence quality (SIGNc)
Hamilton et al [28]

Scherr D, 2006 [37] 20

S1, 14 (93);
S2, 6 (83)
50 (14) FUUd +

Scherr D, 2009 [31] 120

S, 66 (69.5);
TC, 54 (72)
66 (64-74) RCTe ++

Worringham C, 2011 [36] 6 f 53.6 (42-67) FUU +

Blasco A, 2012 [32] 203 (80)

S, 102 (81);
TC, 101 (79)
60.6 (23.8) RCT ++

Seto E, 2012 [35] 100

S, 50 (82);
TC, 50 (76)
53.5 (14) CTg +

Varnfield M, 2014 [34] 94

S, 53 (91);
TC, 41 (83)
52.13 (9.2) RCT +

Forman D, 2014 [38] 26 (77) 59 (43-76);
33%>65
FUU +
Nelson et al [30]

Fischer H, 2012 [39] 47 50-59 FUU +
Perski et al [29]

Glasgow R, 2011 [33] 270 S1, 137 (54.7);
S2, 133 (48.9)
57.8 (9.3) RCT ++

Arden-Close E, 2015 [40] 132 S1, 137 (54.7);
S2, 133 (48.9)
57.8 (9.3) FUU +

aS: mHealth study group.

bTC: traditional control group.

cSIGN: (-) low, (+) acceptable, (++) high quality.

dFUU: feasibility, usability, utility.

eRCT: randomized clinical trial.

fNot available.

gCT: controlled clinical trial.