Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Quality assessment of included studies according to the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool

From: Health benefits of electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review

Study Component rating Global ratinga
Selection Bias Design Confounders Blinding Methods Drop-outs
Acute studies
 Bernsten [22] Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Gojanovic [18] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Hansen [21] Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Langford [23] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Moderate Moderate
 La Salle [26] Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Louis [27] Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
 Meyer [28] Weak Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
 Simons [20] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Sperlich Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
 Theurel, 2011 [24] Weak Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
 Theurel, 2012 [25] Weak Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
Longitudinal studies
 Cooper [32] Moderate Moderate Strong Weak Strong Moderate Moderate
 De Geus [29] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Moderate Moderate
 Hochsmann [30] Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Strong
 Malnes [31] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
 Page [33] Moderate Weak Weak Weak Strong Weak Weak
 Peterman [13] Weak Moderate Strong Weak Strong Moderate Moderate
  1. aStrong = no weak component rating; moderate = one weak component rating; weak = two or more weak component ratings
  2. Note: blinding was not included in the overall global rating calculation