Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality assessment of the included studies (JBI)

From: Does Chinese calligraphy therapy reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Study design Score criteria  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Luo 2000 CCS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Cui 2003 CCS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Zhou B 2005 CS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Zhou GQ 2005 CCS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Dong 2006 RCT 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Zhao 2006 RCT 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Guo 2007 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Zeng 2007 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Zheng 2008 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Li 2010 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Yang 2010 RCT 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Zhou 2010 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Kwok 2011 RCT 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Tian 2012 RCT 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Zhang 2012 CCS 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Dong 2013 RCT 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Xu 2013 CCS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Zhou 2013 CS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6
Zhu 2014 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Tai 2016 CCS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Chan 2016 RCT 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
  1. Abbreviations: JBI Joanna Briggs Institute, RCT randomized controlled trial, CCS controlled clinical study, CS cohort study
  2. Score criteria: 1. Was the assignment to treatment groups truly random? 2. Were participants blinded to treatment allocation? 3. Was allocation to treatment groups concealed from the allocator? 4. Were the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis? 5. Were those assessing the outcomes blind to the treatment allocation? 6. Were control and treatment groups comparable at entry? 7. Were groups treated identically other than for the named interventions? 8. Were outcomes measured in the same way for all groups? 9. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? 10. Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
  3. Score descriptions: yes = 1, no = 0, unclear = 0, not applicable = 0