Table 1.
Quality Ratings of Reviewed Articles.
| Authors (Publication Year) | Research Questions/Hypothesis Are Clear and Appropriate | Sample Size is Stated | Randomization | Attrition Rate is Recorded and Discussed | Data Analysis is Described and Rigorous | Results are Clearly Described | Reproducibility | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashrafioun et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| Behar et al. (2015) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| Bergeria et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Berland et al. (2017) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 5.5 |
| Crocker et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Dahlem et al. (2017) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4.5 |
| Dietze et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4.5 |
| Dion et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 4.5 |
| Edwards et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Eggleston et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Eggleston et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Franko et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Giordano et al. (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Goldberg et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Hargraves et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 5 |
| Heavey et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 5.5 |
| Huhn et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Kim et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Klimas et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 5.5 |
| Kobayashi et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 6.5 |
| Krieter et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Kwon et al. (Kwon et al., 2020) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| McDermott et al. (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Monteiro et al. (2017) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| Pade et al. (2016) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4.5 |
| Petterson et al. (2017) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 5.5 |
| Pietrusza et al. (2018) | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 |
| Saucier et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Wagner et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Williams et al. (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 6.5 |
| Zhang et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Receipt of a quality appraisal score of 1 was tabulated as follows; Category 1, stated aims, research questions, or hypotheses, and was not a quality improvement study; Category 2, sample size must be stated; Category 3, included randomization methodology; Category 4, stated number of participants in analysis; Category 5, provided the type of statistical tests ran; Category 6, provided figures/tables, and scores for assessment scale items; Category 7, provided scales/items.