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
Study	Representativeness	Design	Confounders	Blinding^a	Methods	Drop-outs	Global rating
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

^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

Back to article page