Table A1.
Assessment of study quality using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist [32].
| Study (1st Author, Year) | 1. Was the Research Question Clearly Stated? | 2. Was the Sample of Study Participants Free from Bias? | 3. Were Study Groups Comparable? | 4. Was Method of Handling Withdrawals Described? | 5. Was Blinding Used to Prevent Introduction of Bias? | 6. Were Intervention/Therapeutic Regimens/Exposure Factor or Procedure and Any Comparisons Described in Detail? | 7. Were Outcomes Clearly Defined and the Measurement Valid and Reliable? | 8. Was the Statistical Analysis Appropriate? | 9. Were Conclusions Supported by Results with Biases and Limitations Considered? | 10. Is Bias Due to Study’s Funding or Sponsorship Unlikely? | Overall Quality (+, ø, −) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbone E et al., 2020 [38] | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
| Chao A, et al. 2017 [33] | Y | Y | N/A | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | + |
| Epstein D et al., 2016 [31] | Y | U/C | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | + |
| Giel K et al., 2017 [37] | Y | U/C | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U/C | + |
| Murray S et al., 2019 [39] | Y | N | Y | Y | U/C | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
| Nordin A et al., 2017 [36] | Y | U/C | U/C | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
| Sevincer G et al., 2016 [34] | Y | N/A | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
| Tompkins C et al., 2017 [35] | Y | N | N/A | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
| Vidmar A et al., 2019 [25] | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ø |
Y: Yes; N: No; U/C: Unclear; N/A: Not applicable; (+): positive quality study; (ø): neutral quality study; (−): negative quality study.