Table 1.
Risk of bias assessment–EPHPP assessment tool.
| Domain Rating | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articles | Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals and Dropouts | Global Rating |
| Barkin et al., 2013 | Strong | Strong | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Weak |
| Bonvin et al., 2013 | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Davison et al., 2011 | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| De Craemer et al., 2014 | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Ftizgibbon et al., 2013 | Strong | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Haines et al., 2013 | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Weak |
| Haines et al., 2018 | Strong | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Keita et al., 2014 | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
| Knowlden & Sharma et al., 2016 | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
| Koulouglioti et al., 2013 | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak |
| Latomme et al., 2017 | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| Laukkanen et al., 2017 | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
| Puder et al., 2011 | Strong | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Quattrin et al., 2012 | Strong | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Strong |
| Ray et al., 2020 | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak |
| Stark et al., 2014 | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
| Taverno Ross et al., 2018 | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak |
| Tomayko et al., 2016 | Weak | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Moderate | Weak |
| Trost & Brookes et al., 2021 | Strong | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| Van de Kolk et a., 2019 | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
| Walton et al., 2015 | Weak | Strong | Strong | Weak | Weak | Strong | Weak |
| Wen et al., 2012 | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| Yin et al., 2012 | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
| Zask et al., 2012 | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Moderate |
Notes. Weak = there were no components explained to justify incorporating this domain; Moderate = some components were explained to justify incorporating this domain; Strong = this domain was accurately explained and accounted for. Global rating with 3 level scale: weak = 2 or more weak domains; moderate = 1 weak domain; and strong = no weak domains.