Table 2

Methodological quality ratings for included studies (n=39)

Author and yearSelection biasDesignConfoundersBlindingData collection
and dropouts
EPHPP global
Total score
RCTs (n=7)Of 18
Blank and Smithkline30 2002113313312
Boden-Albala et al,34 201521121118
Dracup et al,15 200911113128
Luepker et al,31 200021111329
Meischke et al,32 199731313NA311/15
Mooney et al,10 201421111117
Müller-Nordhorn et al,33 200911113128
Controlled before and after studies (n=3)Of 12
Morgenstern et al,35 200212321NANA6
Rowley et al,36 198232NA23NANA10
Xin-gang et al,37 201322323NANA9
Uncontrolled before and after studies /ITS (n=26)Of 12
Addo et al,66 201222NA23NANA9
Alberts et al,59 199222NA23NANA9
Barsan et al,60 199422NA23NANA9
Bett et al,45 200422NA23NANA9
Bett et al,46 199322NA33NANA10
Black and Brown,62 197322NA233NA9
Breuer et al,54 199912NA23NANA8
Camerlingo et al,64 201422NA23NANA9
Diercks et al,56 201022NA33NANA10
Gaspoz et al,48 199622NA33NANA10
Herlitz et al,55 199222NA23NANA9
Ho et al,1 198932NA233NA10
Hodgson et al,38 200712NA23NANA8
Luiz et al,49 200112NA23NANA8
Maeso-Madronero et al,52 200012NA33NANA9
Mellon et al,40 201422NA23NANA9
Mitic and Perkins,57 198422NA23NANA9
Moses et al,67 199122NA23NANA9
Naegeli et al,63 201122NA23NANA9
Nishijima et al,65 201622NA23NANA9
Rau et al,53 200812NA23NANA8
Rustige et al,41 199222NA23NANA9
Thomassen et al,50 199932NA23NANA10
Waters et al,47 198312NA23NANA8
Wolters et al,51 201522NA23NANA9
Wright et al,58 200112NA23NANA8
Post-test only (n=2)Of 12
Bray et al,44 201523NA23NANA10
Månsson et al,43 199923NA33NANA11
Case–control study (n=1)Of 12
Tummala and Farshid,42 201522NA23NANA9
  • As the global rating, following EPHPP guidelines, could not be calculated for studies with non-randomised designs, we also calculated a sum total of the ratings across all dimensions that were applicable to the study design. This total score ranges from 6 to 18 if all six dimensions are applicable and from 4 to 12 if only four dimensions are applicable. Lower scores suggest better overall methodological quality and higher scores suggest poorer quality.

  • EPHPP, Effective Public Health Practice Project; ITS, interrupted time series; NA, not applicable; RCTs, randomised controlled trials.