Skip to main content
. 2020 May 12;20:666. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08818-y

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Quality assessment results (n = 17) with modifications to EPHPP criteria. Blinding criteria modified: a rating of strong was assigned when both assessors and participants were blinded, a rating of moderate was assigned when either assessors or participants were blinded, and a rating of weak was assigned when neither were blinded or it could not be determined. Confounders criteria modified: age, gender and SES were considered as the important potential confounders