Skip to main content

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