Supplementary Table 3. Results of quality assessment of the NIH tool for controlled intervention studies.
| Author |
Year |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
Score |
| Andrade et al |
2020 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
CD |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
good |
Quality of included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment tool for Controlled Intervention Studies https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort). 1. Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT?; 2. Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)?; 3. Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)?; 4. Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment?; 5. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments?; 6. Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)?; 7. Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment?; 8. Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15 percentage points or lower?; 9. Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group?; 10. Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)?; 11. Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants?; 12. Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between groups with at least 80% power?; 13. Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)?; 14. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned, i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis? CD=cannot be determined; NA=not applicable; NR=not reported; N=no; Y=yes.
