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

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

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

NA, not applicable
* 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
**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.

ISSN: 1479-5868