Table 3. Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned.
Author(s)/Date Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q14 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Quality
Score
Browne et al. (2004) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Burgueño & Medina-Casaubón (2020) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Burgueño et al. (2018) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Burgueño et al. (2017) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Cuevas et al. (2015) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Cuevas et al. (2016) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Fernandez-Rio et al. (2013) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Hastie et al. (2013) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Hastie et al. (2009) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Kao (2019) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Luna et al. (2020a) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 14
Luna et al. (2020b) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Méndez-Gimenez et al. (2015) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Parker & Curtner-Smith (2005) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 UTD 0 11
Pereira et al. (2016) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Pereira et al. (2015) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Perlman (2010) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Perlman (2011) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Perlman (2012) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Pritchard et al. (2008) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Rocamora et al. (2019) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Segovia & Gutierrez (2020) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Spittle & Byrne (2009) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Viciana et al. (2020) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 UTD 0 13
Wahl-Alexander & Chomentowski (2018) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 12
Wallhead & Ntoumanis (2004) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 UTD 0 11
Wallhead et al. (2014) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 11
Xu et al. (2019) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 UTD 0 13
Question (Q). Q1: Is the Hypothesis/aim/objective clearly described? Q2: Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? Q3: Are the characteristics of the participants included in the study clearly described? Q4: Are the interventions of interest clearly described? Q5: Are the distribution of principal confounders, in each group of subjects to be compared, clearly described? Q6: Are the main findings of the study clearly described? Q7: Does the study provide estimates of random variability in the data for the main outcomes? Q8: Have all the important adverse events, that may be a consequence of the intervention, been reported? Q9: Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? Q10: Have actual probability values been reported for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? Q11: Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Q12: Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? Q13: Were the staff, place, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive? Q14: Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? Q15: Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? Q16: If any of the results of the study were based on 'data dredging', was this made clear? Q17: In trials and cohort studies, do the analysis adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or in case-control studies, in the time period between intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? Q18: Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? Q19: Was the compliance with the interventions reliable? Q20: Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? Q21: Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited from the same population? Q22: Were the study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited over the same period of time? Q23: Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups? Q24: Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patient and health care staff until was complete and irrevocable? Q25: Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analysis from which the main findings were drawn? Q26: Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? Q27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%?