Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Calorie menu labeling on quick-service restaurant menus: an updated systematic review of the literature

Reference Study design* Randomization Blinding Selection bias Measurement bias Confounding Overall quality based on score average**
Real world settings
Elbel et al. (2011) [17] 1 NA 0 1 2 0 Fair
Elbel et al. (2009) [18] 1 NA 0 1 2 0 Fair
Finkelstein et al. (2011)[19] 1 NA 2 2 2 1 Good
Chu et al. (2009) [6] 0 NA 2 2 2 1 Fair
Dumanovsky et al. (2011) [16] 0 NA 0 1 2 0 Fair
Laboratory settings
Harnack et al. (2008) [20] 2 2 1 2 2 1 Good
Roberto et al. (2010) [21] 2 2 0 2 2 1 Fair
  1. NA, not applicable
  2. * Study design: Randomized controlled trials received a score of 2, cohort studies with comparison groups received a score of 1, and single group studies (with no comparison group) received a score of 0
  3. **Quality scoring: 2 for good (or low potential for bias), 1 for fair (or moderate potential for bias), 0 for poor (or high potential for bias). To achieve a final quality rating of good, studies had to have an average score greater than or equal to 1.5 and could not receive scores of 0 for any individual variable. An average score less than or equal to 0.5 would have been considered to be a study with poor quality. Scores in between were considered fair quality studies.