Table 6. Methodological quality and strength of evidence for studies examining barriers to physical activity in undergraduate university students.
| Downs and Black checklist | GRADE | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Study (year) | Conflict of interests | Ethical approval | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Total | Score | |
| Cross-sectional (n = 17) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Awadalla et al. [127] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 10/12 | 83% | ●○○○ |
| Chan [89] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| El-Bagoury et al. [90] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| El-Gilany et al. [128] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Frederick et al. [120] | *o | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 09/12 | 75% | ●●○○ |
| Gawwad [91] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 10/12 | 83% | ●●○○ |
| Grubbs et al. [92] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 09/12 | 75% | ●●○○ |
| Gyurcsik et al. [93] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Kgokong et al. [94] | * | * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Kulavic et al. [118] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 09/12 | 75% | ●●○○ |
| Nishimwe-Niyimbanira et al. [124] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Ramirez-Velez [136] | * | * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 09/12 | 75% | ●●○○ |
| Samara et al. [121] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Silliman et al. [95] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●○○○ |
| Sousa et al. [119] | * | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 09/12 | 75% | ●●○○ |
| Sukys et al. [125] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Vaz et al. [96] | * | * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Longitudinal (n = 1) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Ranasinghe et al. [97] | No | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 0 | - | 08/12 | 66% | ●●○○ |
| Qualitative study (n = 4) | Conflict of interests | Ethical approval | CASP | ||||||||||||||||||
| Anjali et al. [126] | * | Yes | NA | ☆☆☆ | |||||||||||||||||
| Burton et al. [122] | No | Yes | NA | ☆☆☆ | |||||||||||||||||
| Laar et al. [123] | No | Yes | NA | ☆☆☆ | |||||||||||||||||
| Wattanapisit et al. [98] | No | Yes | NA | ☆☆☆ | |||||||||||||||||
Downs and Black checklist: A) objective clearly stated; B) main outcomes clearly described; C) sample characteristics clearly defined; E) main findings clearly defined; F) random variability in estimates provided; G) lost to follow-up described; H) probability values reported; I) sample target representative of population; J) sample recruitment representative of population; L) study based on “data dredging,” if applied; N) statistical tests used appropriately; and O) primary outcomes valid/reliable; (correspond to questions 1–3, 6–7, 9–12, 16, 18, 20).
* not reported. NA, not applicable.
GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, where cross-sectional and longitudinal studies with one filled circle = very low quality, two filled circles = low quality, three filled circles = moderate quality, and four filled circles = high quality.
CASP: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist, where qualitative studies were classified as low (one star: 0–3 points), medium (two stars: 4–7 points) and high quality (three stars: 8–10 points).