Table 3.
Methodological quality assessment “Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies”.
| Study | Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies | Overall Score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals and Dropouts | Intervention Integrity | Analyses | ||
| Karssemeijer et al., (2019) [35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Huang et al., (2019) [54] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lamb et al., (2018) [42] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Henskens et al., (2018) [37] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Toots et al., (2017) [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Öhman et al., (2016) [48] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Kim et al., (2016) [45] | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Cancela et al., (2016) [51] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hoffmann et al., (2015) [46] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Bossers et al., (2015) [43] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Yang et al., (2015) [39] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Cheng et al., (2014) [36] | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Vreugdenhil, et al., (2012) [50] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Venturelli, et al., (2011) [44] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Kemoun et al., (2010) [49] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Steinberg et al., (2009) [47] | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Eggermont, et al., (2009a) [53] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Eggermont et al. (2009b) [52] | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Miu et al., (2008) [34] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Christofoletti et al., (2008) [40] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Stevens & Killeen, (2006) [33] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Van de Winckel, et al., (2004) [41] | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
1 = Strong; 2 = Moderate; 3 = Weak.