Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 2;80(2):230–241. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab016

Table 3.

Summary of methodological quality scores for 15 studies included in the meta-analysis of resonance Raman spectroscopy validity studies

Score (range: 0–3)
Criterion Morgan et al, 201976 Jahns et al, 201977 Aguilar et al, 201469 Rensburg et al, 201679 Zidichouski et al, 200980 Jahns et al; 201478 Bernstein et al; 201370 Bernstein et al; 201281 Henriksen et al; 201371 Ermakov et al; 201372 Nguyen et al; 201573 Mayne et al; 201015 Conrady et al; 201782 Meinke et al; 201074 Perrone et al; 201675
Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 2
Clear description of research setting 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 3
Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0
Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Description of procedure for data collection 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s) 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 0
Detailed recruitment data 1 1 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 1
Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
Fit between stated research question and method of data collection 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
Fit between research question and method of analysis 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
Good justification for analytic method selected 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2
Strengths and limitations critically discussed 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0
Score total/maximum score possible; % 28/36; 77.8 30/36; 83.3 32/36; 88.9 25/36; 69.4 22/36; 61.1 33/36; 91.7 18/36; 50.0 23/36; 63.9 25/36; 69.4 17/36; 47.2 30/36; 83.3 31/36; 86.1 21/36; 58.3 18/36; 50.0 17/36; 47.2