Table 2.
Critical appraisal of the 11 studies with the use of Quality Criteria Checklista
| Celikbilek, 2018 [22] | Elliott, 2013 [23] | Felipo, 2012 [24] | Filipovic, 2018 [21] | Seo, 2016 [32] | Takahashi, 2017 [28] | Tarter, 1984 [30] | Tarter, 1987 [31] | Tuttolomondo, 2018 [33] | Weinstein, 2018 [27] | Weinstein, 2019 [29] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance Questions | |||||||||||
| 1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dietetics practice? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Validity Questions | |||||||||||
| 1. Was the research question clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Were study groups comparable or was an appropriate reference standard used? | Y | N | Unclear | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Were methods of handling losses from the original sample (withdrawals) described? | Y | N | NA | Y | N | N | N | N | NA | NA | Y |
| 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Unclear | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 6. Was the intervention/treatment regimen/exposure factor, procedure, process or product of interest, and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were intervening factors described? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 7. Were outcomes or condition or status of interest clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Unclear | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Overall Ratingb | Positive + | Positive + | Positive + | Positive + | Positive + | Positive + | Positive + | Neutral Ø | Neutral Ø | Positive + | Positive + |
aThe Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library (EAL) and Quality Criteria Checklist was used as the appraisal tools
bAbbreviations: NA Not Applicable. Positive (+) = most of the answers to the validity questions are “Yes” (including criteria 2, 3, 6, and 7 and at least one additional “Yes”). Neutral (Ø) = the answers to the validity criteria questions 2, 3, 6, and 7 do not indicate that study is exceptionally strong. Negative (−) = most (six or more) of the answers to the validity questions are “No”