Table 2.
Quality Assessment of Included Studies Based on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tools.
| Reference | No. of Criteria Met (n) | Score (%) | Rating | (#) Items not met or unspecified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCT studies—rated out of 14 items | ||||
| De Loera-Rodríguez et al, 37 Mexico | 13 | 93 | Good | (13) analyses prespecified |
| Demers et al, 38 Canada | 14 | 100 | Good | |
| Lee et al, 39 Korea | 13 | 93 | Good | (3) treatment allocation concealment |
| Linn et al, 40 Myanmar | 13 | 93 | Good | (12) sample size reporting and 80% power analysis |
| Osterlund et al, 47 Finland | 11 | 79 | Good | (4-5) Blinding procedures, (8) drop out rate |
| Rosli et al, 42 Malaysia | 10 | 64 | Fair | (3) treatment allocation concealment, (6) group similarity at baseline, (7) drop-out rate, (9) intervention adherence |
| Sasidharan et al, 43 India | 13 | 93 | Good | (6) Group similarity at baseline |
| Shao et al, 44 China | 3 | 21 | Poor | Items 2-10 unspecified, (11) outcome measures not listed/described, (12) sample size reporting and 80% power analysis |
| Wierdsma et al, 45 The Netherlands | 7 | 50 | Fair | (2) Adequate randomization, (3) treatment allocation concealment, (8) drop-out rate, (9) intervention adherence, (11) outcome measures, (12) sample size reporting and 80% power analysis, (13) analyses prespecified |
| Yoon et al, 48 Korea | 13 | 93 | Good | (12) sample size reporting and 80% power analysis |
| Pre-Post Single Group Trials—rated out of 12 items | ||||
| Liu and Huang, 46 China | 4 | 33 | Poor | (1) study objective defined, (4) enrolled all eligible participants, (6) methods clearly described, (7-9) measures, blinding, loss to follow-up, (11) interrupted time series design, (12) individual level data |
| Ohigashi et al, 41 Japan | 8 | 67 | Fair | (4) enrolled all eligible participants, (5) sufficiently large sample size, (9) loss to follow-up, (11) interrupted time series design |