Skip to main content

Table 1 Critical appraisal criteria of study methodologies

From: Effectiveness of interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition and healthy weight for university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Criteria 7 Criteria 8 Criteria 9 Criteria 10 Classification
1. Abu-Moghli et al. 2010 [1] 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
2. Afifi Soweid et al. 2003 [69] 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
3. Alpar et al. 2008 [67] 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
4. Bowden et al. 2007 [37] 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
5. Boyle et al. 2011 [38] 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
6. Brown et al. 2011 [39] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
7. Buscemi et al. 2011 [40] 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
8. Cardinal et al. 2002 [41] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
9. Cavallo et al. 2012 [19] 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
10. Chen et al. 1989 [42] 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
11. Claxton et al. 2009 [43] 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
12. Evans & Mary 2002 [43] 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
13. Fischer & Bryant 2008 [45] 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
14. Gieck & Olsen 2007 [46] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
15. Gow et al. 2010 [47] 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 +
16. Gray et al. 1987 [47] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
17. Grim et al. 2011 [5] 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
18. Ha & Caine-Bish 2009 [49] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
19. Hager et al. 2012 [50] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
20. Harvey-Berino et al. 2012 [52] 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
21. Hekler et al. 2010 [51] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
22. Huang et al. 2009 [7] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 +
23. Ince 2008 [68] 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
24. Kolodinsky et al. 2008 [53] 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
25. Lachausse 2012 [54] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
26. LeCheminant et al. 2011 [55] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
27. Magoc et al. 2011 [57] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 +
28. Martens et al. 2012 [40] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
29. McClary King et al. 2013 [56] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
30. Musgrave & Thornbury 1976 [59] 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
31. Pearce & Cross 2013 [31] 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
32. Pearman et al. 1997 [60] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
33. Peterson et al. 2010 [61] 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
34. Reed et al. 2011 [62] 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
35. Sallis et al. 1999 [63] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
36. Skar et al. 2011 [70] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
37. Tully & Cupples 2011 [71] 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
38. Wadsworth et al. [64] 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
39. Werch et al. 2007 [65] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 +
40. Werch et al. 2008 [73] 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
41. Yakusheva et al. 2011 [66] 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
  37 25 10 7 4 34 23 35 33 41  
  1. Criteria: 1) Was the research question clearly stated? 2) Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? 3) Were study groups comparable? 4) Was the method of handling withdrawals described? 5) Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? 6) Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were intervening factors described? 7) Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? 8) Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? 9) Were conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? 10) Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? #1 = Yes; 0 = No; 0 = Unclear.
  2. MINUS/NEGATIVE (−) If most (six or more) of the answers to the above validity questions are “No”, the report should be designated with a minus (−) symbol on the Evidence Worksheet.
  3. NEUTRAL () If the answers to validity criteria questions 2, 3, 6, and 7 do not indicate that the study is exceptionally strong, the report should be designated with a neutral () symbol on the Evidence Worksheet.
  4. PLUS/POSITIVE (+) If most of the answers to the above validity questions are “Yes” (including criteria 2, 3, 6, 7 and at least one additional “Yes”), the report should be designated with a plus symbol (+) on the Evidence Worksheet.
\