Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 1:1–23. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s40489-022-00340-8

Table 3.

Quality rating of individual studies

Author (year) Title and abstract Introduction and aims Method and data Sampling Data analysis Ethics and bias Findings and results Transferability/generalizability Implication usefulness Total score Quality rating
Karst et al. (2015) 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 33 High
Lunsky et al. (2015) 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 31 High
Lunsky et al. (2021) 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 32 High
Mazzucchelli et al. (2018) 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 30 High
Ruiz-Robledillo et al. (2015) 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 30 High
Salem-Guirgis et al. (2019) 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 32 High
Schiltz et al. (2018) 3 3 2 2 4 2 4 2 3 25 Medium
Singh et al. (2019) 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 32 High
Singh et al. (2014) 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 34 High
Siracusano et al. (2021) 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 23 Low
Smith et al. (2018) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 34 High
Yoo et al. (2014) 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 34 High
Zu et al. (2019) 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 21 Low