Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment of the included studies according to the EPHPP tool

From: Effectiveness of interventions using self-monitoring to reduce sedentary behavior in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Component rating Global rating
Representativeness Design Confounders Blindinga Methods Drop-outs
Arrogi, 2017 Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Moderate
Adams, 2013 Moderate Strong Weak Weak Strong Weak Weak
Ashe, 2015 Weak Strong Weak Moderate Strong Moderate Weak
Biddle, 2015 Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Moderate Strong
Brakenridge, 2016 Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Moderate
Carr, 2013 Weak Strong Strong Moderate Strong Moderate Moderate
De Cocker, 2016 Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
De Greef, 2011 Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Strong
Edwardson, 2018 Weak Strong Weak Moderate Strong Moderate Weak
Kitagawa, 2019 Weak Strong Strong Moderate Weak Strong Weak
Klaren, 2016 Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
Lin, 2018 Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Strong Strong
Lynch, 2019 Weak Strong Weak Weak Strong Strong Weak
Lyons, 2017 Weak Strong Weak Weak Strong Strong Weak
Maylor, 2018 Moderate Strong Weak Weak Strong Strong Moderate
Smith, 2012 Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Moderate Strong
Spring, 2018 Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Weak
White, 2017 Weak Strong Weak Moderate Strong Strong Weak
Wyke, 2019 Weak Strong Strong Moderate Strong Strong Moderate
  1. a The overall risk of bias was calculated for each study based on the EPHPP guidelines (https://merst.ca/ephpp/) without taking into account the blinding score (see Methods). A strong rating was allocated to studies without weak ratings, a moderate score was allocate to studies with one weak rating, and a weak rating was allocated to studies with two or more weak ratings