TABLE 3.
Critical Appraisal Scores of Articles per CCAT Categories and Risk of Bias per JBI Tool (n - 17)
| Study | Preliminaries (5) | Introduction (5) | Design (5) | Sampling (5) | Data collection (5) | Ethical matters (5) | Results (5) | Discussion (5) | TOTAL CCAT %* | JBI Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al, 2020 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 98% | Low |
| Bai et al, 2020 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93% | Low |
| Castellanos et al, 2019 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 90% | Low |
| Wulff-Burchfield et al, 2019 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93% | Low |
| Sari et al, 2019 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 73% | High |
| Rhoten et al, 2018 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95% | Low |
| Chiang et al, 2018 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95% | Low |
| Xiao W. et al, 2017 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93% | Low |
| Eraj et al, 2017 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95% | Low |
| Deng et al, 2016 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95% | Low |
| Hanna et al, 2015 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93% | Low |
| Rosenthal et al, 2014 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 98% | Low |
| Xiao C. et al, 2014 † | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 98% | Low |
| Xiao C. et al, 2013 † | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 98% | Low |
| Gunn et al, 2013 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 98% | Low |
| Shi et al, 2013 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 90% | Low |
| Fodeh et al, 2013 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 93% | Low |
| Howell et al, 2012 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 95% | Low |
CCART, Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool; JBI, Joanna Briggs Institute; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
*
Total CCAT score divided by 40 and converted to percentage
†
Secondary analyses of the same primary RCT.